Archives: Publication

With the re-election of Donald Trump, the United States is poised to enter a critical peri-od of climate policy retrenchment. Trump’s policies promise increased fossil fuel production and the reversal of major clean energy investments, threatening global efforts to combat climate change.

Trump’s proposed energy policies suggest a substantial set-back for climate action. His administration aims to roll back the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which has allocated billions of dollars in tax credits for renewable energy projects and EV incentives, spurring substantial private sector investment. In 2024 alone, global clean energy spending hit $2 trillion, double the amount invested in fossil fuels. Yet, Trump’s proposed policies could throttle US participation in this growth, reinforcing dependency on fossil fuels rather than joining the global trend toward clean energy, where renewables now constitute the most economical choice in many regions.

The implications of a second US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement-a prospect Trump has not ruled out-are pro-found. When Trump first exit-ed the Agreement in 2017, it allowed other nations to delay action under the guise of US non-participation. If Trump follows through again, it could stymie global climate funding negotiations, particularly for developing countries. Although the US has commit-ted to contributing to a $100 billion global fund for climate adaptation and mitigation, the administration’s climate skepticism puts these financial obligations at risk. Without US leadership, experts fear slower progress on international agreements crucial to keeping global warming within the 1.5°C target.

Domestically, Trump’s policies would deepen the US dependency on fossil fuels. His administration’s strategy emphasises maximising domestic oil and gas production, particularly from reserves Trump calls “liquid gold.” However, the fossil fuel industry’s employment numbers tell a different story: the US green economy supports over 10 million jobs compared to 300,000 in fossil fuel industries. The economic case for green energy is clear, yet Trump’s vision includes reestablishing subsidies for oil, coal, and natural gas, effectively sidelining the renewable sector In 2023, electric vehicles comprised 18 per cent of global car sales, a significant jump from just 2 per cent five years prior. Yet, Trump has criticised electric vehicles and promised to impose tariffs on imported Chinese EVs, potentially raising prices and diminishing EV adoption in the US market. These policies might inhibit US competitiveness in EV manufacturing and battery technology, where other nations-especially China-have taken the lead. Another concerning proposal from Trump’s allies involves dismantling federal programs that support cli-mate research and environ-mental regulation. Plans under “Project 2025” advocate for defunding key agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and scaling back the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas monitoring. Without federal sup-port for climate research and mitigation, the US could lose critical insight into atmospheric changes. In a geopolitical context, Trump’s reelection could weaken the US influence in global climate governance.

Given the US role in controlling financial institutions that facilitate climate finance, its withdrawal or failure to meet commitments could reduce climate funding, a key agenda item at the COP29 summit in Baku. As the world’s largest historical emitter, the US has a responsibility to lead by example. Yet, with US emissions having only fallen 5 percent since 1990-compared to the EU’s 35 per cent reduction-the country’s role as a climate leader is increasingly tenuous under Trump’s leadership. Despite federal opposition, analysts believe that state governments, corporations, and financial markets will continue advancing climate action, albeit at a potentially slower pace.

Over the past decade, bipartisan support for renewable energy has increased, driven by job creation and energy independence rather than environmental motives alone. With or without federal backing, the economic engine for clean energy remains robust, with new manufacturing plants and energy storage facilities rapid example. Yet, with US emissions having only fallen 5 per cent since 1990 compared to the EU’s 35 per cent reduction-the country’s role as a climate leader is increasingly tenuous under Trump’s leadership. Despite federal opposition, analysts believe that state governments, corporations, and financial markets will continue advancing climate action, albeit at a potentially slower pace.

Over the past decade, bipartisan support for renewable energy has increased, driven by job creation and energy independence rather than environ-mental motives alone. With or without federal backing, the economic engine for clean energy remains robust, with new manufacturing plants and energy storage facilities rapidly coming online, particularly in states that benefit from IRA-funded projects.  Given that federal policy directly influences emissions standards, environmental regulations, and international commitments, the pace of progress could indeed slow, with repercussions for both the US economy and global climate goals. If Trump’s policies take effect, is it likely that the US will fall even further behind on inter-national climate standards? What risks will US industries face if they resist the global shift to cleaner energy, only to find themselves competing in a marketplace that increasingly penalises high-emission practices?

The author is a faculty member at NCAER in New Delhi; Views are personal.

The hybrid trolley bus, which can switch between using overhead lines and a battery, can offer reliable, clean transportation at low operating cost.

In India, the need for clean, energy-efficient transportation options is more urgent than ever. The National Electric Mobility Mission Plan aims to push electric vehicles (EVs)as a solution for both private and public transport. Battery-operated buses are becoming an essential part of this strategy. However, are they really the silver bullet we need?

Battery electric buses (BEBs) are often seen as the future of public transport, and for good reason. They produce zero tailpipe emissions, are more energy-efficient than diesel buses, and can be powered by renewable energy sources like solar and wind. This makes them a perfect fit for a country like India, which is working towards energy self-reliance in the clean energy sector.

However, the challenges of adopting BEBs are significant. The initial investment required for an e-bus is steep ₹2.5-5 crore compared to ₹35-40 lakh for a diesel bus. E-buses also require substantial infrastructure investment, such as charging stations. Limited battery life, of 5-6 years, is another hurdle. Additionally, as the batteries don’t last long enough for a full day’s work, so buses have to swap in and out of service. Twice the number of CNG/diesel buses are needed. On the flip side, the long-term operating costs of BEBs are lower. They have no fuel costs, fewer moving parts, and require less maintenance. For example, BEBs offer superior mileage on a single charge, depending on battery size and route conditions, with a range of 200-300 km.

This is impressive when compared to diesel buses, which rely on costly and polluting fuel sources. As battery technology advances, their range will improve, further reducing operational challenges. But the question is whether municipalities can bear the upfront costs to unlock long-term savings.

Trolley buses

Trolley buses or trams, once viewed as relics of the past, are making a smart comeback in today’s urban mobility landscape. There are two main types of trolley buses: traditional ones that rely solely on overhead electric lines and more advanced hybrid versions. The hybrid trolley buses are a game-changer — they can switch between using overhead lines and a battery, giving them the flexibility to operate on routes without extensive electric infrastructure. On a single charge, these batteries can power the bus for 2-3 hours making them incredibly versatile for cities with mixed infrastructure.

Additionally, it has an operational lifespan of 20-30 years, making them a cost-effective option over the long run.

This dual-mode system means trolley buses aren’t just dependent on electric wires or limited by battery range, offering a practical and forward-thinking alternative to diesel buses. Importantly, while other BEBs require a fleet two to three times of diesel or CNG buses, trolley buses can operate with fewer vehicles compared to BEBs while maintaining efficiency. They don’t need as many backup units, making them a more sustainable solution for urban transit systems.

The downside is the high initial and infrastructure investment — around ₹9-10 crore overall — but once in place, trolley buses can offer reliable, clean transportation at low operating costs. In cities like San Francisco and Zurich, trolley buses have proven their worth as dependable, eco-friendly options.

India’s transition to sustainable transportation is not just an environmental necessity— it is an economic and social imperative. The decisions made today will set the trajectory for decades to come. As we chart the path forward, it’s clear that the future of urban mobility hinges on investments in electric, and trolley buses.

Pohit and Mandal are with NCAER, New Delhi. Views are personal

It is apparent that through CBAM, the EU wants to intimidate non-EU nations into adopting its self-proclaimed position as climate leader.

Protectionism is a threat to the collaboration required between the developed and developing world in addressing climate issues. Innovative protectionist ideas, such as the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (EU-CBAM), the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, and the EU Deforestation Regulation, have led to concerns in developing nations. India has criticised the EU-CBAM, in particular, as being “arbitrary”.

A ‘discriminatory’ tool

The CBAM is meant to ensure that imported products bear a carbon emission cost comparable to the cost imposed on goods produced within the EU. Exporters will be mandated to provide information on the quantity and emissions of their goods and buy certificates to match those emissions. The definite phase of the CBAM will enter into force on January 1, 2026. This may pose significant risks to India’s international trade. The EU comprises 20.33% of India’s total merchandise exports, of which 25.7% are affected by CBAM. During the last five fiscal years, iron and steel have accounted for 76.83% of these exports, followed by aluminium, cement, and fertilizers.

In recent editions of the Conference of the Parties (COPs), India has said that CBAM is “discriminatory” and called on developing countries to establish a coordinated response to what it considers as an unjust transfer of responsibilities. The CBAM is attracting considerable attention at COP29 in Baku. However, under-prepared arguments presented at COP29 could undermine India’s credibility as a leading voice of the Global South.

It is important to recognise that not all developing economies share the same economic aspirations as India, nor will they be equally affected by the impacts of climate change. Therefore, perceptions regarding CBAM are complex even within the developing world. Issues related to multilateral and bilateral trade and cultural ties between developed and developing economies influence the tone of their arguments. The current production-based accounting principle practiced under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) includes the emissions resulting from the production of exportable commodities within the emission inventory of the exporting nation. The exporting nation is held accountable for the reduction of these emissions, even though these products are not consumed within its domestic market. As a result, many developing economies with less stringent emission reduction measures are accused of climate change when they export more.

The proposed arguments

Therefore, India’s arguments should also align with other developing countries’ agenda, if India wishes to speak like a leader. The following could be some of the arguments. First, on the time for preparing for CBAM. With administrative deftness, the EU set a target to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 20% compared to 1990 levels by 2020; this is outlined in the EU Climate Action and Renewable Energy Package in 2008. Following the accomplishment of these targets, the European Green Deal was unveiled in 2019, extending the emission reduction target to 55% below the 1990 levels in a Fit for 55 Package. Does the CBAM offer developing economies a matchable time to adapt?

The second is on empowerment. The EU has decided to keep the revenues generated from the CBAM as its resources, which will be used to fund the NextGenerationEU recovery tool and operate the CBAM. Depending on the mechanism’s ultimate design, the anticipated additional money generated by CBAM for 2030 is estimated to be €5 to €14 billion annually. Is it appropriate for the EU not to share this revenue with non-EU trading partners? Doing so may contribute to capacity building and technology transfer in developing economies.

Third, there is the issue of quantifying emission reduction responsibilities. India can justifiably advocate for an alternative called Equity-based Accounting (EBA) of Nationally Determined Contributions, which emphasises a collective obligation for emission reductions among trade partners based on the ideas of horizontal intra-generational equity and vertical inter-generational equity. In the context of the EU-CBAM, India can introduce the concept of EBA to the developing world concerning retaliation measures. Using the EBA, a formula can be proposed to calculate the tariff base on imports from the EU, which considers factors such as relative per capita GDP, relative per capita emissions, relative gains from trade, and relative avoided emissions through trade. By expressing the actual emissions embedded in imports in a way that reflects the developmental and historical heterogeneities between trade partners, any developing economy can be better positioned under these new rules of the game, which provide an unbiased evaluation of climate initiatives.

Even the PBA adheres to the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities, which is significantly compromised under the CBAM framework. CBAM does not acknowledge compensatory justice or distributive justice. Consequently, the allocation of emission responsibilities is not equitably assigned to countries based on their historical contributions to climate change or their capacity to mitigate its effects. It is apparent that through CBAM, the EU wants to intimidate non-EU nations into adopting its self-proclaimed position as climate leader.

Suvajit Banerjee, Fellow at NCAER, New Delhi. Views are personal; Sovini Mondal, Research Associate at NCAER, New Delhi. Views are personal

Kavach is modelled on the European train control system. In Europe, it is also used as a signalling system, a necessity in the European railways given the high cost of labour in the EU.

The spate of train accidents has brought into focus the anti-collision system, Kavach. This year’s railway budget identified safety as a priority. For 2024-25, a sum of Rs 1,112.57 crore — a 50% increase from the interim budget — had been allocated to instal Kavach. However, in a written response in July, the railways ministry clarified that Kavach has been deployed on only 1,465 kilometres in the South Central Railway — close to 2% of the total 68,426 km network. According to its estimate, at least Rs 45,000 crore will be required to equip all railway routes with Kavach. Going by the budgeted amount, it will take years for Kavach to be rolled out across the entire railway network. Does the railways have the capacity to roll out the system in a time-bound manner?

Kavach is modelled on the European train control system. In Europe, it is also used as a signalling system, a necessity in the European railways given the high cost of labour in the European Union. Kavach has five main elements, including the laying out of optical fibre throughout a route, which implies the installation of telecom towers at every 4-5 km with a data centre at every station. The signals between two stations are integrated into the data centre along with electronic interlocking. The track is also fitted with radio-frequency identification devices while another device is fitted above each loco. For all these reasons, Kavach is a complex project requiring massive work in terms of money, time and labour.

There do exist alternative systems that can be installed at a faster pace.

Consider the computer-assisted anti-collision device in automobiles. Most anti-collision system technologies use cameras for image recognition and either a radar or a laser to detect the proximity of other objects. They may also include a GPS sensor to detect fixed objects that a driver might not see. Most devices are fitted only in automobiles, unlike Kavach where one needs to instal other devices along an entire railway route apart from fitting the device in the engine.

In the case of airlines, surveillance radar helps aircraft monitor whether there are other aircraft in the vicinity. A computer analysis determines which aircraft represents potential collision threats. But trains confront a set of specific challenges in this respect: the manoeuvring possibilities are considerably reduced and, thus, the reaction options are mainly limited to applying the brakes of the train. The potential speed of the trains, combined with the reduced reaction capabilities and the geographical proximity between adjacent rails, leads to a high accuracy requirement on position determination.

In this context, a system developed by The German Aerospace Center offers an interesting alternative. With the Railway Collision Avoidance System, there is no need for any line equipment — the trains communicate directly with each other and there is a warning alert in the unlikely case of a possible collision. Central to this system is the regular exchange of relevant information about position, direction of travel, and speed via train-to-train radio communication without a base station. All leading rail vehicles — locomotives, motorcars and, possibly, control cars — are equipped with a vehicle unit. This comprises a positioning and a communication component. The latter sends its own driving parameters continually via radio directly to all trains in the immediate vicinity and receives this information from other vehicle units at the same time. It can identify situations of potential conflict by comparing its own data with those of the received data.

The investment necessary for this system is cheap compared to other rail anti-collision systems. Moreover, as it involves installing devices only in the loco car/engine, it can be implemented in a time-bound manner compared to Kavach that requires the laying of optical fibre and the building of data centres all along the route. 

Sanjib Pohit is a professor at NCAER. Views are personal.