Vertex Views

Category: Sustainability

  • WTO Vs Indian Fishermen

    Indian fishermen are organising a protest against the World Trade Organization (WTO) (the World Trade Organisation). Specifically, they are opposed to a draught plan that would prohibit governments from subsidising illegal, unregulated, unreported, and other similar types of fishing that contribute to overfishing and overcapacity.

    We realise that’s a lot of words. So let’s take it one step at a time, starting with fishing.

    Between 40,000 and 10,000 years BCE, humans began fishing. For millennia, it has been one of humanity’s most accessible sources of protein. And as the world became more industrialised, demand for protein-rich foods (particularly fish) increased dramatically. Other, more primitive approaches were supplanted by large mechanised boats. Localized fishing was phased out in favour of commercial fishing.

    However, there is a problem. Scale fishing isn’t always a good idea. And doing so aggressively brings with it a slew of issues. For example, catching fish without allowing the adults to reproduce has an impact on the population. And if you keep fishing the same waters over and over, you’ll eventually wipe them out. This is, without a doubt, unpleasant. Not only does it have an impact on your livelihood (since you can’t fish anymore), but it also has an impact on the marine ecosystem. Take the bluefin tuna, for example. Since they’ve been overfished to the point of near extinction, a single bluefin tuna may command over $1.75 million. Their absence has had an impact on the entire ecosystem. The top predator in the marine food chain is still bluefin tuna. They also disrupt the natural order of things when they aren’t devouring other fish. It has the potential to make some species thrive while causing others to vanish completely from the map.

    To put things in perspective, the bluefin tuna isn’t the only species on the verge of extinction. Over a third of all available fish stocks (34.2 percent) have already been farmed beyond sustainable limits. It’s a disaster.

    However, we introduced a few other terms at the outset: illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing (or IUU). This occurs on both the high seas and in places under a nation’s sovereignty. China, for example, was ranked first in the 2021 IUU Fishing Index, which tracks illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing in 152 coastal countries. Chinese large fishing vessels travel to remote waters in the Pacific, South America, and Western Africa, hauling most of the catch and leaving little or nothing for local fishermen.

    However, there is a problem. The demand-supply equation should, in theory, keep most things in check. Fishing should become more expensive and time-consuming as fish stocks decline. Fishing should become unsustainable as a result. States, on the other hand, frequently continue to fund unprofitable fishing by extending subsidies that allow fishermen to continue their pursuit. Subsidies such as reduced fuel prices, financial assistance, and freebies such as nets and boats are available. And the World Trade Organization (WTO) wants to put an end to it. They want countries to sign a draught proposal promising to eliminate all subsidies for specific types of fishing. And they believe that this will significantly reduce overfishing.

    India, on the other hand, is not in a position to back down. Yes, overfishing is a significant problem, and we’ve already dealt with it. The state of Kerala noted a significant drop in the sardine population a few years ago and commissioned research to figure out why. When scientists looked for answers, they discovered that overfishing and harvesting adolescent fish were the two most significant factors affecting their population. We also have issues with companies that produce fish meal and fish oil elsewhere (FMFO). Bycatch — unwanted fish and other marine creatures caught alongside the sought-after species — is a source of income for these people. Trawler boats have been aggressively sweeping the ocean floor to meet the ever-increasing demand of the FMFO industry, resulting in an unsustainable environment in Indian waters.

    The WTO’s proposal, on the other hand, has a flaw. They want us to eliminate subsidies in the same way that more developed countries have done. We are not, however, the same. We’ve never been. Our fishermen are in dire straits. 67.3 percent of the country’s 3.77 million fishermen live below the poverty line. They also have a little more than 2 lakh fishing boats, with about 59,000 of them being mechanised. Furthermore, India does not provide exorbitant subsidies. We provided $277 million in subsidies to small fishermen in 2018. China, on the other hand, offered up to $7.3 billion in subsidies, while the EU and the US offered $3.8 billion and $3.4 billion, respectively.

    We also don’t actively engage in remote water fishing, which is defined as fishing beyond 200 nautical miles from the shore. The seashore and exclusive economic zones are where we spend the majority of our time. As a result, India is requesting that the WTO take a differentiated approach. They want the subsidies enforced on the most wealthy countries (which frequently overfish and provide enormous subsidies), with exceptions provided for low-income fishermen from developing countries.

    Keep in mind that the WTO has made certain concessions, but India does not believe these are sufficient. So we’re sticking to our guns, and we’re making sure the fishermen do as well, so the top brass is aware of their worries.

    We’re not going anywhere.

  • Insight into the future of rental electric vehicles in India

    For today’s consumers, mobility is no longer a product, but rather a service. Instead of buying, the present generation prefers to book a car or a cab. So, how does this affect the future of electric vehicles?

    This decade’s upheaval is mobility. Places and opportunities become more accessible to the general public as a result of mobility. This, in turn, leads to more affluence and a better quality of life. The mobility industry facilitates access to goods and services, healthcare, and education.

    Physical changes such as roads, bridges, and railways, as well as technological developments such as electric vehicles, connected vehicles, autonomous driving, and advances in shared mobility, micromobility, and vehicle rental, are all part of the mobility sector’s evolution.

    Mobility has transitioned from a product to a service. While our parents used to buy cars and scooters, today’s customers are content to order a taxi or reserve a self-drive automobile on their phone over the weekend. Users’ fundamental mindsets are shifting away from owning assets and toward using services to meet their immediate requirements.

    This worldview is pervasive not only in India’s metropolises but also across the country’s towns and cities, as well as across social classes.

    People are more aware of the funds being blocked and the inconveniences of ownership than they are of owning a vehicle as a status symbol or an asset. This is a long-term trend, with Niti Aayog estimating that by 2030, 35 percent of all passenger miles in India will be on shared transportation, and by 2040, 50 percent.

    The leasing of electric vehicles is at a fork in the road due to a slew of such issues. It enables higher vehicle utilisation while being professionally handled in specialised fleet management settings.

    With the introduction of electric vehicles, IoT (Internet of Things) gadgets, and electronic payments, rental firms can now provide clients with an end-to-end solution that eliminates the headaches of insurance, repairs, and maintenance.

    For these changes to make an impact, this disruption needs to be accessible and affordable. While electric vehicles improve total operating costs, shared mobility distributes capital expenditures across multiple users.

    For commuters, two-wheelers are the first step in terms of affordability. Rental electric two-wheelers have the potential to create wheels of growth for the masses in India, and this is where the true disruption is taking place.

    Until now, shared mobility has overlooked two-wheeler users, even though the category is by far the largest in India, with 20 crore two-wheelers. This is no longer the case, as businesses have developed solutions centred on two-wheeler rentals and pay-as-you-use options.

    These services are fast establishing a captive customer base across India’s cities, with demand coming from a variety of industries.

    Users benefit from the renting of electric two-wheelers in a variety of ways. They may utilise these vehicles without putting their cash at risk; they only pay for what they use, and the vehicles are used far more than they would be if they were owned by a single person.

    Consumers also appreciate the fact that, in a fast expanding area such as electric vehicles, they are protected from technology changes, upgrades, resale values, and battery life, among other things. The fact that rental EVs are brought to your home, that they can be purchased easily using an app, and that all repair, maintenance, insurance, and RTO costs are paid are all added perks.

    Electric two-wheeler rental is a multibillion-dollar industry. Even if shared mobility only accounts for a small percentage of India’s 20 million two-wheelers, it would undoubtedly generate a market worth tens of billions of dollars.


    Apart from commuters, the logistics and e-commerce sectors have a strong need for these two-wheelers.

    These businesses are expanding at a dizzying pace, and electric vehicles are the key facilitators. Aside from the inherent pull of industry, the government is also pressuring these sectors to adopt electric vehicles. Pure play fleet owners are in the greatest position to meet the industry’s enormous demand.

    In the long run, electric two-wheeler rentals are expected to rise significantly in the next years, with the potential to democratise mobility for the masses.

  • How Is India Becoming Environmentally Friendly?

    The Paris climate agreement is a turning point for everyone on the planet. It marks a turning point in the fight against climate change. This is the culmination of years of negotiations, with 196 countries pledged to increase their bets on climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, global warming, and all these bad things.  The purpose of the agreement is simple. All countries, big or small, must achieve certain goals. Before the whole problem becomes irreversible, they must reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce pollution and do everything possible to use green energy. The plan aims to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees or even 1.5 degrees Celsius higher than pre-industrial levels.

    So the world made some promises, set a timetable, and everyone started to work, including India. Our goal was very difficult. First, we pledged to reduce emissions intensity by 33%-35% by 2030. If you don’t know what it is, it’s emissions per unit of GDP. We all know that economic progress depends on the production of new energy sources, but if you keep doing this and burn dirty fuel, it is likely to lead to higher emission rates.  Compared with the 2005 level, its GDP emission intensity is approximately 21% (this is our benchmark). However, with this in mind, we still have things to do. In addition, we also promised to obtain approximately 40% of the country’s electricity from other sources not based on fossil fuels by 2030. Finally, we pledged to the world to create a new carbon sink that can reduce about 500 to 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the air. What should we do? Well, we promise to achieve this by increasing forest and tree cover, but technically speaking, if anything absorbs more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than it emits, it will be classified as a carbon sink.  Going green is not always easy. We can’t just flip the switch and go green overnight. Thermal power plants and coal-fired power plants (despite their shortcomings) are still the country’s energy sources in many ways. The most important thing is to achieve our goal without destroying the economic engine.
    This is to force Discom (distribution companies) and large power consumers to obtain a certain percentage of their energy demand from renewable energy. In some cases, they can even fulfil their obligations by purchasing a Renewable Energy Certificate (REC).

    Think about it, because REC is for people who produce renewable energy. But these people can exchange these certificates with those who can. The question is of meeting your clean energy needs. The goal is to punish institutions that refuse to make changes and prompt them to act quickly. For example, if you consume a lot of electricity but can still meet most of your energy needs from coal-fired power plants, then you will pay more, and sooner or later you will inevitably accept the authorization of clean energy.

    But so far, they have encountered a common combination of solar and wind energy. It works well for those who produce solar and wind energy. We have seen some investments in these institutions, and the cost of using solar and wind energy is declining. But the government is not satisfied with this. They want to diversify and see if we can repeat this success elsewhere. They also hope to add green hydrogen to the mixture. This means that if you generate energy by electrolyzing water, the government may soon force certain institutions to obtain a certain percentage of their energy from you.

    So yes, they are trying to make a difference. If they insist on strictly complying with these laws, we are likely to see some real developments soon.

  • Three Reasons Why Recycling Is Failing

    Many people think of recycling as their primary environmental action, yet recycling as it is currently practised does relatively little to mitigate environmental catastrophes like climate change, according to experts who convened last month.

    “To be of benefit, recycling needs to be done well, and our current recycling system is delivering some mixed results, especially as we continue to export contaminated recyclables to countries that lack adequate infrastructure,” said David Allaway, a senior policy analyst with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

    “As a state, we currently recover around 40 percent of our solid waste,” Allaway said, “and if we could bump that up to 90 percent recovery it would reduce climate impacts—but only by about 3 percent.”

    Recycling produces its strongest benefits when it displaces the extraction of materials (like ore or oil) at the beginning of the production process, Allaway said in a webinar hosted by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute. It produces additional, though smaller, benefits by reducing emissions from landfills and incinerators and by conserving energy.

    But Recycling is done poorly in the United States, and that’s partly because the American public is confused about what and how to recycle, Allaway said. Their confusion leads to high levels of contamination (such as plastic bags or food-soiled cardboard in recycling bins). The contamination leads to increased costs for themselves, the ratepayers, and the governments who collect the recyclables.

    But the public shouldn’t shoulder the blame, Allaway said, because the ratepayers and governments are effectively subsidizing both the companies that produce the materials and those that purchase them after recycling. That fundamental economic misalignment, he said, contributes to these three root challenges to the success of recycling:

    1 Under-Investment

    The climate and environmental benefits of recycling are not reflected in its economics. “Recycling can reduce costs to society through reducing pollution and climate change, but these benefits are not reflected in the economic signals that industry and local governments are responding to,” Allaway said, “and this leads to an under-investment in recycling.” Consumers and governments are collecting materials for producers who pay much less for them than the cost of collection.

    2 Under-Participation

    Because producers are left out of recycling’s economics, they have less incentive to reconsider packaging or product design. “There is a significant gap in the responsibility involving consumer brands,” Allaway said. “These producers have the unique power to influence changes in packaging and product design and create market demand for recycled materials and reduced price volatility, but they are largely absent from our current policy framework.”

    3 Unchanging Laws

    Many recycling laws were designed 30 to 40 years ago, Allaway said when the economics of recycling was driven largely by the newspaper. Since then, the newspaper has all but disappeared from the waste stream. Waste handling has changed dramatically, and the laws haven’t kept up. “Thirty years ago nobody anticipated that we would mix our recyclables, or that we need processing facilities to sort them out, or that we’d export them to distant lands with less environmental regulation and infrastructure.”

    “We should reduce first,” Allaway said, “and only then recycle.”