Archives: Publication

Migration should not merely be managed as a ‘problem’; it is often an adaptive strategy for those fleeing conflict, economic hardship, and climate impacts. If managed correctly, migration can benefit host economies and help people escape climate impacts.

In the quiet streets of Waterloo, Ontario, a South Asian man was verbally assaulted by a stranger who accused him of “taking over” Canada. This incident,though seemingly isolated, reveals the simmering tensions in societies grappling with an influx of migrants. The confrontation was not just about personal animosity; it was a stark manifestation of how anti-immigrant sentiment, when normalised in political discourse, filters into everyday interactions. As nations confront increasing migration pressures — whether driven by conflict, climate change, or economic instability — the question of whether immigrants can truly assimilate into their host societies remains more pressing than ever.

Migration, historically seen as a means of survival and adaptation, is becoming one of the most divisive issues of our time. In the US, Donald Trump’s victory in the recent elections has once again placed immigration under the spotlight. The introduction of Project 2025, which proposes stringent controls on border security and a reduction in legal protections for migrants, underscores a growing global trend toward isolationism. Meanwhile, in Canada, a country once hailed as a beacon of multiculturalism, political leaders are now cutting back on immigration numbers, blaming newcomers for exacerbating housing shortages and healthcare crises. In both countries, anti-immigrant rhetoric is not only shaping policies but also fueling everyday acts of hatred and violence against those perceived as “the other”.

The idea of cultural assimilation is not new. In the US, a country built on waves of immigration, scholars like Ran Abramitzky and Leah Boustan have shown through historical census data that the children of immigrants have consistently integrated into the economic and social fabric of American life. Immigrants from the late 19th century to those arriving today continue to work low-wage jobs while ensuring that their children climb the socioeconomic ladder. Yet, despite empirical evidence that assimilation remains robust, the narrative that migrants today are unwilling or unable to integrate into their host cultures persists.

In reality, the barriers to assimilation are not solely about cultural differences or the willingness of immigrants to adopt new norms. Rather, they are shaped by the structural and societal forces that define who belongs. The resurgence of nationalist rhetoric, especially in countries like the US and Canada, feeds on fears of cultural dilution and economic displacement. This sentiment is amplified when politicians leverage xenophobia for electoral gains, turning immigrants into convenient scapegoats for systemic problems. The result? A climate of suspicion and exclusion, where the social and psychological well-being of migrants is put at risk.

While economic and political factors have long driven migration, the climate crisis is now a critical force reshaping migration patterns. The World Migration Report 2024 projects that over 216 million people will be displaced by climate change by 2050. In India, climate impacts such as droughts in Maharashtra, floods in Assam, and reduced agricultural productivity in Punjab are already pushing rural workers into urban centres. Unlike international migrants, these internal migrants face the challenge of assimilating into diverse regions within India, where customs, language, and cuisine differ starkly.

Cultural assimilation is not limited to international migrants in India; interstate migration also sparks tensions. For example, the movement of people from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh into Maharashtra has provoked xenophobic responses from locals who see migrants as competitors for scarce resources. This highlights the complex narrative of India’s internal migration, where climate-driven displacement intersects with regional identity conflicts.

Anti-immigrant sentiment is not isolated to North America. Across Europe, far-right parties exploit fears of the “Great Replacement” theory, which posits that non-white immigrants are “replacing” native populations. Similarly, Canada has seen a rise in hate speech targeting South Asians, mirroring the xenophobic narratives prevalent in the US and Europe. Hate crimes in Canada, especially against racialised groups, have surged; in 2023, 44.5 per cent of hate incidents were racially motivated, illustrating how rhetoric can quickly fuel violence.

Recent political campaigns, like those of Donald Trump, inflame these tensions by depicting migrants as security threats. Policy moves like the removal of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and restrictions on student visas, proposed under Project 2025, could leave over a million people without legal protection, worsening the precarious conditions immigrants already face.

The need for a nuanced view of migration is urgent. Migration should not merely be managed as a “problem”; it is often an adaptive strategy for those fleeing conflict, economic hardship, and climate impacts. If managed correctly, migration can benefit host economies and help people escape climate impacts, as noted in UN reports. Policies supporting cultural assimilation should prioritise pathways to citizenship, access to social services, and investments in language and skills training. For India, facing both internal and external migration, fostering social cohesion and equitable development is crucial. When given resources, migrants contribute to and enrich host communities economically and culturally.

As nations wrestle with the twin crises of climate change and political instability, the question is not whether migrants can assimilate but whether we are willing to create the conditions for them to do so. The rhetoric of division may win votes, but it will not solve the deeper structural issues driving migration. To build a more resilient and inclusive society, we must resist the politics of fear and recognise that, at their core, migrants are not threats but partners in building a better future. 

(The writers are with National Council for Applied Economic Research, New Delhi. Views are personal)

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