Decarbonisation Is Nearing. India Should Brace For its Impact.

As renewable energy and innovations like carbon border taxes gather pace, the world will see global manufacturing chains redeploy themselves.

The fourth – and concluding – report in this series looks at the costs of accelerated decarbonisation in a battered economy. Read the first, second and third stories here, here and here

For the longest time, developing economies have resisted emission reduction.

That, however, is set to change. Not only are carbon border taxes coming in, global finance, wary of getting saddled with stranded assets, is fast adopting ESG (environmental, social, and corporate governance) principles.

The fallout is striking. Developed countries (and global finance) are bypassing national governments and forcing value chains to decarbonise.

As our second report showed, companies are being compelled to adopt expensive technologies like carbon capture even before the supportive policy—like carbon offsets and emission markets – come up.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statements at COP26 have added to the pressure. By 2030, he announced at Glasgow, India will meet 50% of its energy requirements from renewable energy; and that the country’s emissions intensity will drop by 46-48% from 2005 levels.

Decarbonisation is nearing. Accordingly, the first two reports in this series have looked at India’s prospects in the energy transition. Our first report asked if India can become a supplier (if not of the technology, then of the fuels). Our second report looked at local value chains’ capacity to decarbonise.

Our third report looked at the regulatory scaffolding needed for carbon capture technologies to work.

Also read: How Carbon Taxation Can Lead To a Cost-Effective Climate Change Mitigation Strategy in India

Running deeper than coal

Talk about the energy transition and coal comes up immediately.

A number of researchers across the world are working on ‘just transition’ – to support the economies that run on fossil fuels. In India, ‘just transition’ is usually invoked in the context of coal. As its use falls, coal-producing regions will see revenues fall; sectors allied to coal will see closures and job losses.

What India is about to see with accelerating decarbonisation, however, is a bigger shock.

Units based on the fossil fuel economy will obviously come under strain, for example India’s automotive sector. As the world moves to electric vehicles, firms making internal combustion engines will be in a fix. As Tata Motors’ electric vehicle deal with TPG Rise Climate and ADQ (Abu Dhabi Developmental Holding) shows, larger firms might survive, but smaller firms will struggle. As things stand, electric vehicles need fewer parts than internal combustion engines. Firms in such supply chains will be hit.

Even industries not at risk of obsolescence will see losses. Take India’s steel sector. In a bid to retain access to export markets, bigger firms are trying to decarbonise. As the second story in our series showed, Tata Steel is mulling over hydrogen and carbon capture. Smaller companies, however, are too cash-strapped to remake themselves.

And yet, these two changes are just the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Cost of energy is a major determinant of where value chains locate themselves. Now, as renewable energy and innovations like carbon border taxes gather pace, the world will see global manufacturing chains redeploy themselves. “Till now, the West had outsourced most of its manufacturing to developing countries,” said economist Jayati Ghosh. “Most of its emissions are produced from consumption. In contrast, most of the Global South’s emissions emanate from manufacturing, not from consumption.” Now, she said, “we will have to see which of these value chains stay in the third world and which ones move back.”

These questions will touch even sectors like textiles. It will have to choose between renewables – whose prices are set to rise in India – and paying carbon border taxes. “This is like ISO,” said Ghosh. “It, too, had covered input suppliers to companies. That said, the informal economy in many of these sectors makes it almost impossible to comply.”

Also read: The Six Advantages of Imposing a Harmonised Carbon Tax

A large dislocation is coming

At the best of times, doing business in India is not easy.

To begin with, there is our erratic policy making. In coal, thermal power producers found themselves unable to compete with those who bagged discretionary captive coal block allocations – and slipped into losses. And then, after the Supreme Court deallocated those blocks, the favoured few slipped into losses as well.

In gas, cheap domestic gas was abruptly yanked from fertilisers and given to city gas distributors. The latter then found their prices capped. In solar, the rooftop sector has been brought to its knees by DISCOMs, which don’t want their most profitable customers to set up their own solar installations. The rest of the market – ground installations of solar panels – has also been hammered. Between the country’s ‘Make in India’ push, the imposition of a basic Customs duty on solar imports, and a hike in GST rates, solar equipment and tariffs are set to cost more as well. This will also push up hydrogen prices in India.

That is not all. A clutch of states, like Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, have reneged on power purchase contracts. “There is no sanctity of contracts,” said Sandeep Hasurkar, the author of Never Too Big To Fail, a book detailing the collapse of IL&FS.

The country is now adding technological risk to that melee. To retain access to export markets and finance, companies have to decarbonise. Compounding matters, they have to decarbonise despite being under strain. Between demonetisation (2016), the botched rollout of GST (2017), the cash crunch (2018), the first COVID-19 lockdown (2020) and the second one (2021), most companies are struggling.

The outcome is one where larger companies might make the shift – but smaller ones will struggle.

“Since domestic lending to industry has collapsed in the last half-decade with the NPA crisis and its legacies, access to foreign capital has become crucial for companies looking to grow quickly,” said Rohit Chandra, an assistant professor at IIT Delhi’s School of Public Policy. “Unfortunately, foreign capital generally comes to a very small set of Indian firms and regions.” ESG norms are likely to exacerbate this inequality, he said.

What will happen next? With only a few firms able to sell in decarbonised markets, will the rest compete in India’s domestic market? In that sense, will the world split into two markets – one green, but not the other? Or will the country see further consolidation of economic power with a few? In which case, what happens to the rest?

What does all this mean for the economy itself?

India, said Ghosh, is “teetering at the edge of a financial crisis. We are very fragile and vulnerable right now. I do not know if this will push us over the edge.”

This article was first published by CarbonCopy. Read the original here

‘Unscientific’ or ‘Indifference’: A Look at ‘Access Inequality’ Data as Govt Slams Hunger Index

If the Union government thinks that the Global Hunger Index’s methodology is ‘unscientific’, here is another Index that shows a troubling picture for the state of ‘Access Inequality in Basic Amenities’ across India.

In the Global Hunger Index (GHI) released last week, India’s ranking slipped seven places to a rank of 101 from 94, in over just a year. The index gives a score on a 100 point scale, where zero indicates no hunger and 100 shows an “extremely alarming” situation. With a score of 27.5, the level of hunger in India is “serious”.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the socio-economic crisis of ‘access inequality’ has exacerbated across India (and much of the developing world), and has surely made the situation of ‘access to basic nutrition’ worse, especially for those positioned at the bottom of the income-and-social pyramid.

In an essay written during the early days of the pandemic’s first wave, I had then argued — with some empirical detail — how ‘nutritional outcomes’ across India will be severely affected with growing levels of ‘food insecurity’ and rising poverty, which an ad-hoc (national) lockdown further accentuated.

Notwithstanding the sufferings caused by the pandemic — and the national government’s insensitive response to it — it becomes critical to widen our discourse from just measuring, or analysing the distributive ‘access to food/nutrition’ in India to also include the broader nature of ‘access inequality’ as relevant for ‘basic amenities’ (i.e. roti, kapda, makaan, paani etc.) to populations in states across India.

While the Government of India has recently questioned ‘the unscientific methodological flaws’ present in the GHI’s design (without much empirical detail), what we can do here is to look at another relatable composite metric to see if the raised direction of concern — as pointed by GHI in its 2021 report — is further substantiated by the empirical data available on basic amenities, and not just for food and nutrition, for all states across India.

In a recent study undertaken by the Centre for New Economics Studies (CNES), O.P. Jindal Global University, a few of us attempted to conceptualise the creation of a new index — the Access (In)equality Index (AEI) — envisioning to measure and study differential inequality of access in terms of access to basic social and economic services and opportunities through the constitution of five ‘access’ pillars, for states and union territories across India.

The best performers in our study were categorised as ‘Front Runners’, the average performers as ‘Achievers’ and the below average performers as ‘Aspirants’ (see the report here for more details). In context to this discussion (i.e. around the GHI’s recent findings), let’s look into one of the measured pillars of assessment as done for our study, where the score of states under the access to basic amenities pillar reflects some stark realities, warranting everyone’s attention.

Also read: ‘Government’s Response to Global Hunger Index Mischievous’: Jean Drèze

What did the AEI find?

As seen in Figure 1 below, Goa followed by Punjab, Kerala, Sikkim, Haryana, Mizoram, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Telangana are front runners (index value > 0.71) owing to the fact that the basic amenities in terms of drinking water, sanitation, housing, clean energy, nutrition and digital access out-par other states in India.

Figure 1: State-Level Performance on ‘Access to Basic Amenities’. Source: Access (In)Equality Report 2021

 

Figure 2: Access to Basic Amenities: Ranking for Union Territories (UTs). Source: Access (In)Equality Report 2021

Goa’s high score is driven by a high score across access to drinking water, functional toilets, good quality housing, clean fuel, food through PDS and the internet. The index values for achievers lie between 0.52-0.71. On the other hand, aspirants including Jharkhand, Odisha, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, West Bengal, Meghalaya and Mizoram have underperformed.

In terms of UTs (see Figure 2 above), Chandigarh, Delhi and Puducherry are top performers. Performance of Chandigarh across all the indicators is extraordinary. Approximately 98% of the household has water supply within the premise; 100% of the household in Chandigarh has access to both latrines and water in latrines.

Access to sanitation, housing and nutrition in Delhi is also striking. Also, the internet and mobile users in Puducherry and Delhi is relatively high. Smaller geographical coverage, more focused implementation-driven welfare policies make most UTs to perform differently from States.

Figure 3: (In)Equality of What Among Basic Amenities. Source: Access (In)Equality Report 2021

Within the sub-indicators extrapolated from our data in Figure 3, the worst performing states/UTs on measuring proximate access to piped drinking water feature Bihar; on sanitation is Odisha; on housing is Manipur; on clean energy is Odisha; on nutrition is Puducherry, and on digital access is Tripura.

Let’s break this further down to each sub-category (within access to basic amenities).

Drinking water: Piped drinking water being available to the households is one of the critical components for achieving universal access to safe drinking water in the country. Approximately 95% of the households in Goa and 86% of the households in Sikkim have access to piped water supply, with the states’ overall average being 42%.

The distance travelled to access the principal source of drinking water measures the quantity and quality of water used by the households. Off-premises improved water sources located within 30 minutes of the point of use are considered a basic service. If the source is located above 30 minutes from the source, level of service is classified as “limited” (WHO & UNICEF 2017).

Figure 4: Percent of Households with Piped Water Supply Connections into Dwelling or Yard Across States in India. Source: Access (In)Equality Report 2021

 

Figure 5: Percent of Households with Distance to Primary Source of Drinking Water being within Dwelling Or within Premises Across States in India. Source: Access (In)Equality Report 2021

The relation between the quantity of water used by the household and the time taken to fetch it can be qualitatively described as non-linear with a steep decline (at roughly 3 minutes of collection time) in water used once the source is not on the premise. While only 67% of the households in Indian states have access to water within the premise, more than 80% of households in Goa, Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and Sikkim have to travel less to access drinking water.

Sanitation: Access to toilets and availability of water in the toilets has been the agenda of the national sanitation programme “Swachh Bharat Mission” launched in 2014.

The inadequate access to toilets has caused India an economic loss of $53.8 billion — equivalent to 6.4% of the GDP as a result of health-related impacts including premature deaths, the cost of treating disease and productive time lost due to illness. Other causes include the impact of women not going to work due to related illnesses and of girls missing school.

 

Figure 6: Percent of Households with Access to Latrines Across States in India. Source: Access (In)Equality Report 2021

 

Figure 7: Percent of Households with Access to Water in Latrines Across States in India. Source: Access (In)Equality Report 2021

The findings from the index suggest that 100% of the households in Sikkim have access to toilets and 99% of households have access to water in the toilets, with the average of the top five front runner states being 97% and 98%, respectively.

Housing: Good quality, secure housing is one of the major end goals for many societies aiming to ease global poverty and ensure the provision of basic amenities for economically backward groups. Over the years, several governments, both state and central, have introduced various housing schemes in India. The Indira Awaas Yojana which began in 1996 was one of the first major housing schemes with large-scale goals. Renamed the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana Gramin, the scheme now works on the objective of housing for all by 2022. Until now, only 78% of the states in Indian have access to a pucca house.

Figure 8: Percent Households living in Houses under Good Condition Across States in India. Source: Access (In)Equality Report 2021

 

Figure 9: Percent Households living in Pucca Houses Across States in India. Source: Access (In)Equality Report 2021

On an average 95% of the top five front runner states have access to a pucca house, but the access to good condition houses in these five states is also abysmally low at 59%, though above the national average of 46%. The rural-urban disparities seen in the percentage of households with pucca houses and those in ‘good condition’ presents a grim picture.

Clean energy: For over three decades, successive central and state governments in India have made efforts to increase the penetration of clean cooking energy solutions like liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), improved biomass cookstoves (ICS), biogas plants and piped natural gas (PNG), among others. However, only 63% of the households in Indian states have access to clean fuel in India.

Figure 10: Percent Households with Clean Energy (Cooking Fuel) Across States in India. Source: Access (In)Equality Report 2021

Nutrition: The index reveals that about 100% of the households in Kerala, Sikkim, Goa, West Bengal, Rajasthan, Manipur, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh have access to food through PDS, while the states’ average being 98%.

Despite having the access, 189.2 million people are undernourished in India and about 51.4% of women in reproductive age between 15 to 49 years are anaemic. Even, the Global Hunger Index 2019 ranked India at 102 out of 117 countries on the basis of three leading indicators —prevalence of wasting and stunting in children under five years, under-5 child mortality rates, and the proportion of undernourished in the population.

Digital access: Measured by the number of internet users and mobile users in the country, digital access can also be considered one of the basic amenities, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on the survey conducted by IMRB in 2019, we find that on an average only 41% of the individuals in the Indian states are internet users, while 66% of the individuals are the main users of at least one mobile phone.

The internet users in Goa, Punjab, Kerala, Sikkim and Haryana make up 59%, 56%, 59%, 38% and 51% of the population, respectively. While the average amount of mobile users in the top five states is 68% of the population.

Jharkhand, Odisha, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh are the aspirants. Only 9% of the households in Jharkhand and 11.4% of the households in Odisha have access to drinking water. The access to water in latrines in these five states is below the average of all the states. Less than 30% of the households in these five states have access to “good condition” housing and on an average only 41% have access to clean fuel in these five laggard states.

Let’s take a step further and see the sociological and spatial dimensions of this ‘access inequality’ to basic amenities.

Measuring across social and rural-urban divides

It is well documented how marginalised (caste) groups such as Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) are not allowed to access the ‘same water’ sources via wells or community stand-posts as against the dominant caste groups in some rural villages in India (see Joshi & Fawcett, 2005 for more). This discriminatory access barrier is rooted in orthodox social beliefs which creates a barrier to access basic amenities, not only for water, but also other basic amenities: like community toilets, decent housing, etc.

Figure 11: Spatial Disparities On Access to Basic Amenities: The Rural-Urban Divide. Source: Access (In)Equality Report 2021

On spatial considerations, where people reside have a strong impact on their opportunities, including access to basic amenities, healthcare, education, decent work. Based on population projections of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), around 65.8% of the Indian population resided in rural areas in 2020, thus, a majority of India still lives in its villages. In aggregate, access to opportunities and resources have a clear spatial and social identity-based dimension: people of lower caste living in rural areas are far worse off than upper class/caste identity-based groups residing in urban populations (as shown in Figure 11 above).

Also read: Beyond the Big Promises, ‘PM Poshan’ Is Old School Meal on New Plate

Therefore, the results shown here by AEI on access to basic amenities, and in relative comparison — and expansion — to the scope of the GHI reflect how ‘insecurities’ stemming from a (dis)proportionate degree of access to basic amenities, including nutrition, varies from one state to another.

Yes, states with better governance, more focused welfare vision (centred around a state-vision of providing universal access to basic amenities for all groups), and better implementation with compliance mechanisms for existing Union/state-level programmes, do well.

However, deep-rooted access inequities exist due to sociological and gendered reasons, which do merit qualitative, ethnographic level interventions -for reasons of both analytical study and policy interventions.

While the national government of the day — including state governments — may do well to acknowledge the state of ‘Bharat’ we live in, rejecting ‘alarmist’ findings from an index, or calling its methodology “unscientific”, projects an amateurish and indifferent approach to resolving our problems.

Deepanshu Mohan is associate professor of Economics and director at the Centre for New Economics Studies, Jindal School of Liberal Arts and Humanities, O.P. Jindal Global University. The author would also like to thank and acknowledge the work of the Access (In)Equality Index report’s co-authors: Richa Sekhani, Latika Sharma, Vanshika Mittal and Advaita Singh for making this analytical study possible. For a detailed two-part analyses on the Index’s findings, please see here.