Introduction

RITES Ltd., the consultancy arm of the Indian Railways, has secured two contracts to repurpose six broad gauge diesel-electric locomotives for export to African railways. These locomotives, originally designed for India’s broad gauge of 1,676 mm, will be modified for use on railways with the narrower Cape Gauge of 1,067 mm. While this is a commendable re-engineering effort, it also highlights a larger issue within Indian Railways: the unnecessary redundancy of functional diesel locomotives, leading to significant wastage of resources.

The Growing Problem of Idle Diesel Locomotives

As of March 2023, there were 585 diesel locomotives idling across the Indian Railways network due to electrification. This number has now reportedly grown to 760 locomotives, many of which still have more than 15 years of serviceable life. The root cause of this redundancy lies in the government’s mission to electrify the entire broad gauge network at an accelerated pace. This electrification push has resulted in the premature retirement of locomotives that could still serve the network for years, raising questions about the economic and environmental logic behind this decision.

The Justification for Electrification: Foreign Exchange and Environmental Concerns

The Indian government’s electrification drive is often justified on two primary grounds: saving foreign exchange by reducing the import of crude oil and reducing environmental pollution. Additionally, electrification is framed as a step toward a “green railway” powered by renewable energy sources like solar and wind. However, the reality of these claims is more complicated.

Foreign Exchange Savings: A Small Impact on National Diesel Consumption

While electrification may reduce India’s diesel consumption, the impact on national fuel use is minimal. Railways account for just 2% of the country’s total diesel consumption. A report by AC Nielsen in 2014 indicated that the transport sector consumed 70% of the total diesel, with railways accounting for only 3.24%. Even with 100% electrification, the savings in foreign exchange would have little impact on the country’s overall diesel consumption, leaving other sectors like trucking and agriculture as the main contributors.

Environmental Concerns: Shifting Pollution, Not Reducing It

The environmental argument for electrification is also flawed. Electricity in India is still largely generated from coal-fired power plants, with nearly 50% of the country’s electricity coming from coal. Since the Indian Railways is heavily involved in transporting coal, switching from diesel to electric locomotives simply shifts pollution from the tracks to the power plants. This means that the transition to electric traction will not result in a cleaner environment unless the country significantly reduces its reliance on coal. Without a substantial increase in renewable energy generation, the push for a “green railway” remains unrealistic.

The Dilemma of Retaining Diesel Locomotives for Strategic Purposes

Despite the goal of 100% electrification, a significant number of diesel locomotives will remain in service. Reports indicate that 2,500 locomotives will be kept for “disaster management” and “strategic purposes,” although it is unclear why such a large fleet is necessary for these purposes. Additionally, about 1,000 locomotives will continue to operate for several more years to meet traffic commitments. This suggests that even with a fully electrified network, Indian Railways will continue to rely on thousands of diesel locomotives, many of which have substantial residual service life left.

Financial Sustainability and Coal Dependency

The financial sustainability of this transition remains a concern. Currently, the Indian Railways generates a significant portion of its freight revenue from transporting coal—40% of its total freight earnings in 2023-24. If the railways become fully electrified, it will need to find alternative revenue sources, as coal is a primary contributor. Until non-coal freight options can replace this income, the financial health of the railways may be at risk.

Conclusion: Wasted Resources and Unmet Goals

The mission to electrify the Indian Railways, while ambitious, is an example of how vanity projects can lead to colossal waste. Thousands of diesel locomotives are being discarded prematurely, despite their potential to continue serving the network. The environmental and financial justifications for 100% electrification, while appealing in theory, fail to account for the complexities of India’s energy landscape. As a result, the drive to create a “green railway” is likely to fall short, leaving behind a legacy of wasted taxpayer money and unfinished goals.

In News:

The Arctic tundra, a frozen, treeless biome, has historically been a vital carbon sink, absorbing vast amounts of carbon dioxide (CO?) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). However, recent findings suggest that, for the first time in millennia, this ecosystem is emitting more carbon than it absorbs, a change that could have significant global consequences. This alarming shift was highlighted in the 2024 Arctic Report Card published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The Arctic Tundra’s Role as a Carbon Sink

The Arctic tundra plays a crucial role in regulating the Earth's climate. In typical ecosystems, plants absorb CO? through photosynthesis, and when they die, carbon is either consumed by decomposers or released back into the atmosphere. In contrast, the tundra’s cold environment significantly slows the decomposition process, trapping organic carbon in permafrost—the permanently frozen ground that underpins much of the region.

Over thousands of years, this accumulation of organic matter has resulted in the Arctic storing an estimated 1.6 trillion metric tonnes of carbon. This figure is roughly double the amount of carbon in the entire atmosphere. As such, the tundra has served as a critical carbon sink, helping to mitigate global warming by trapping vast quantities of CO?.

Shifting Dynamics: Emission of Greenhouse Gases

Recent reports indicate a dramatic shift in the Arctic tundra’s role in the carbon cycle. Rising temperatures and increasing wildfire activity have disrupted the tundra’s balance, leading it to transition from a carbon sink to a carbon source.

Impact of Rising Temperatures

The Arctic region is warming at a rate approximately four times faster than the global average. In 2024, Arctic surface air temperatures were recorded as the second-warmest on record since 1900. This rapid warming is causing permafrost to thaw, which in turn activates microbes that break down trapped organic material. As this decomposition accelerates, carbon in the form of CO? and methane (CH?)—a more potent greenhouse gas—are released into the atmosphere.

The experts, explained the process by comparing thawing permafrost to meat left out of the freezer. Similarly, thawing permafrost accelerates the breakdown of trapped carbon.

The Role of Wildfires

In addition to warming temperatures, the Arctic has experienced a surge in wildfires in recent years. 2024 marked the second-highest wildfire season on record in the region, releasing significant amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere. Wildfires exacerbate the thawing of permafrost, creating a feedback loop where increased carbon emissions contribute further to warming, which, in turn, leads to more emissions.

Between 2001 and 2020, these combined factors caused the Arctic tundra to release more carbon than it absorbed, likely for the first time in millennia.

The Global Consequences of Emission

The transition of the Arctic tundra from a carbon sink to a carbon source is alarming, as it represents a significant amplification of global climate change. The release of additional CO? and CH? into the atmosphere further accelerates the greenhouse effect, leading to higher global temperatures. This warming is already having visible consequences around the world, from extreme weather events to rising sea levels.

If the Arctic tundra continues to emit more carbon than it absorbs, it could significantly exacerbate the climate crisis. The report underscores the urgency of addressing global emissions, as reducing greenhouse gases remains the most effective way to prevent further destabilization of this sensitive ecosystem.

Mitigating the Impact: The Path Forward

Despite the alarming trends, the Arctic Report Card suggests that it is still possible to reverse this process. By reducing global GHG emissions, it may be possible to slow the thawing of permafrost and allow the Arctic tundra to regain its role as a carbon sink. Scientists emphasize that mitigating climate change on a global scale is essential to prevent further emissions from the Arctic ecosystem.

Scientists, stressed the importance of emission reductions, stating, “With lower levels of climate change, you get lower levels of emissions from permafrost… That should motivate us all to work towards more aggressive emissions reductions.”

However, current trends suggest that achieving this goal may be challenging. A recent report from the Global Carbon Project indicates that fossil fuel emissions are likely to rise in 2024, with total CO? emissions projected to reach 41.6 billion tonnes, up from 40.6 billion tonnes in 2023.

In News:

COP29, the ongoing climate conference in Azerbaijan’s capital Baku, has given a fillip to the idea of using carbon markets to curb carbon emissions by approving standards that can help in the setting up of an international carbon market as soon as the coming year.

Introduction to Carbon Markets

• Carbon markets allow the buying and selling of the right to emit carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere.
• Governments issue certificates known as carbon credits, each representing the right to emit 1,000 kilograms of CO2.
• The total number of credits issued is capped to control carbon emissions. Companies and individuals who don’t have credits cannot emit CO2.

Trading of Carbon Credits

• Carbon Credit Trading: Companies holding more carbon credits than needed can sell them to others who need more, with the price determined by market forces.
• Carbon Offsets: Businesses can also purchase carbon offsets, often provided by environmental NGOs, which promise to reduce emissions (e.g., by planting trees). These offsets counterbalance the firm’s carbon emissions.
• The trading of both credits and offsets is designed to create financial incentives for companies to reduce their carbon footprint.

Advantages of Carbon Markets

• Addressing Externalities: Carbon emissions are a classic example of an economic externality, where the costs of pollution are not reflected in market prices.
• Market Efficiency: By allowing firms to buy and sell carbon credits, the system internalizes the cost of carbon emissions, encouraging businesses to reduce emissions to avoid higher costs.
• Incentive for Emission Reduction: Carbon markets aim to create a financial reason for companies to lower their emissions, thus helping mitigate climate change.

Voluntary vs. Government-Mandated Carbon Markets

• Voluntary Carbon Reporting: Many corporations prefer voluntary systems like the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) for reporting their emissions, fearing government-imposed restrictions.
• Market Flexibility: Corporations like ExxonMobil and General Motors argue that carbon markets with freely traded credits allocate carbon allowances more efficiently than government-imposed limits. This allows firms to purchase credits from others, optimizing resource allocation without restricting output.
• Corporate Resistance to Government Intervention: Firms are often reluctant to accept strict government budgets for carbon emissions, fearing increased operational costs and production limitations due to diverse supply chains.

Issues and Criticisms of Carbon Markets

• Government Manipulation of Credit Supply: Governments may increase the number of carbon credits issued, leading to lower prices and reduced incentives for emission reductions.
• Lack of Accountability in Carbon Offsets: Critics argue that some companies buy carbon offsets as a form of virtue signalling, without genuine concern for their environmental impact. This undermines the effectiveness of the offsets.
• Government Mismanagement: Political decision-making may lead to the over-restriction of carbon credits, potentially slowing economic growth by limiting available emissions allowances. The ability of governments to accurately determine the optimal supply of carbon credits is a contentious issue.

The Concept of Carbon Credits and Their History

• Introduction of Carbon Credits: Carbon credits were first introduced in the 1990s in the U.S., specifically through a cap-and-trade model designed to control sulfur dioxide emissions. This approach later expanded to include carbon emissions.
• Role of Carbon Markets: In essence, these markets aim to create a financial mechanism where firms can trade the right to pollute, ensuring a balance between economic growth and environmental protection.

Criticism of Carbon Offsets

• Effectiveness of Offsets: Experts are critical of carbon offsets, arguing that they do not always lead to meaningful reductions in emissions. For example, some companies may purchase offsets without ensuring that the projects are genuinely offsetting their emissions.
• Moral Hazard: Critics suggest that offset programs may lead to firms simply paying for the right to pollute, rather than actually reducing emissions in their operations.

Conclusion

• Carbon Markets as a Tool for Emission Reduction: Despite the criticisms, carbon markets remain a promising tool for mitigating climate change, provided they are carefully regulated and implemented.
• The Future of Carbon Trading: As discussions at COP29 evolve, the development of international standards for carbon trading could potentially enhance the effectiveness of these markets, offering a viable path to global emission reductions.