The limitations of CCS and CDR and their grip on future climate (GS Paper 3, Environment)
Why in news?
- At the COP28 climate talks, draft decisions thus far have referred to the abatement and removal of carbon emissions using carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon-dioxide removal (CDR) technologies.
- Considering the meaning of the word ‘abatement’ has become an important bone of contention, understanding the meaning and limitations of CCS is important – as also those of CDR.
What are CCS and CDR?
- CCS refers to technologies that can capture carbon dioxide (CO₂) at a source of emissions before it is released into the atmosphere.
- These sources include the fossil fuel industry (where coal, oil and gas are combusted to generate power) and industrial processes like steel and cement production.
- CDR takes the forms of both natural means like afforestation or reforestation and technologies like direct air capture, where machines mimic trees by absorbing CO₂ from their surroundings and storing it underground.
- There are also more complex CDR technologies like enhanced rock weathering, where rocks are broken down chemically; the resulting rock particles can remove CO₂ from the atmosphere.
- Other technologies like bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) capture and store CO₂ from burning biomass, like wood.
- At COP28, the term “unabated fossil fuels” has come to mean the combustion of these fuels without using CCS technologies to capture their emissions.
- Draft decision texts point to a need to “phase out” such unabated fossil fuels. On the other hand, removal technologies have been referenced in the context of the need to scale zero and low-emission technologies and support forest restoration as a means to promote emission removals.
How much CCS and CDR?
- While their technical details are clear, scientists have questions about the scale at which CCS and CDR are expected to succeed.
- The Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), prepared by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), deals with climate mitigation.
- It relies a lot on the use of CDR for its projections related to the world achieving the goal of limiting the world’s average surface temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C with no or limited overshoot. (Overshoot means the temperature limit is temporarily exceeded.)
- The emission scenarios that the IPCC has assessed that have more than a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C (with no or limited overshoot) assume the world can sequester 5 billion tonnes of CO₂ by 2040. This is more than India emits currently every year.
- There is no pathway to 1.5 degrees C in AR6 that doesn’t use CDR.
How well does CCS work?
- The IPCC AR6 report states CDR ought to be used “to counterbalance hard-to-abate residual emissions.” The reason is that available CDR is to be used strategically to compensate hard to abate residual emissions, not to maintain a high level of fossil fuel use.
- For CCS, too, the term “abated fossil fuels” should be used only in the context of highly effective CCS applications, with a capture rate of 90-95% or more, the captured emissions being stored permanently, and methane emissions leakage from upstream oil and gas production processes being kept under 0.5% (approaching 0.2%).
- But in the real world, natural CDR has been tacked on to existing emissions. For example, the 2023 ‘Land Gap’ report estimated that various governments have proposed to remove CO₂ using around one billion hectares of land.
- Based on this, the report reflected that some pledges over-rely on land-based CDR to offset fossil fuel emissions. This raises serious concerns that these countries are shifting their mitigation burden away from reducing fossil fuel use.
How well does CDR work?
- CDR methods like afforestation, reforestation, BECCS, and direct air capture are constrained by their need for land.
- Land also invokes equity concerns. Land in the Global South is often considered to be ‘viable’ and/or ‘cost-effective’ for planting trees and deploying other large-scale CDR methods.
- As a result, such CDR projects can adversely affect land rights of indigenous communities and biodiversity and compete with other forms of land-use, like agriculture that is crucial for ensuring food security.
- This is of particular concern vis-à-vis technological CDR at scale.
Pitfalls of CCS and CDR
- By removing CO₂ from their environs, there are concerns that CCS and CDR create more ‘room’ to emit the greenhouse gas. (In some cases, CCS has also been used to inject captured CO₂ is into oil fields to extract more oil.)
- In future emissions scenarios that the IPCC has assessed, the world’s use of coal, oil, and gas in 2050 needs to decline by about 95%, 60%, and 45% respectively (all median values) from their use in 2019 to keep the planet from warming by less than 1.5 degrees C with no or limited overshoot.
- But without CCS, the expected reductions are 100%, 60%, and 70% for coal, oil, and gas by 2050.
Revised criminal reform Bills in Parliament
(GS Paper 2, Governance)
Why in news?
- The Centre introduced three revised criminal reform Bills in Lok Sabha recently, withdrawing the previous versions, introduced in August 2023.
Background:
- The Union Home Minister Amit Shah had introduced three Bills in Lok Sabha to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860; the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (originally enacted in 1898); and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- The new bills—Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, to replace the IPC; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for CrPC; and Bharatiya Sakshya (BS) Bill, 2023, for the Indian Evidence Act—were subsequently referred to a standing committee the same day.
- The committee, headed by BJP MP Brij Lal, proposed several key changes to the Bills. Subsequently, the Centre re-introduced the revamped criminal law Bills in Parliament’s winter session. However, several recommendations have gone unconsidered in the new Bill.
What were the committee’s suggestions, and what has changed now?
Handcuffs
- The use of handcuffs, as allowed in Clause 43(3) of the BNSS, to prevent the escape of individuals accused of serious offences and ensure the safety of police officers and staff during arrests, was welcomed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs.
- However, the panel suggested that this should be restricted to select heinous crimes like rape and murder rather than be extended to persons committing “economic offenses.”
- This is because the term “economic offences” encompasses a wide range of offences, from petty to serious, and therefore, it may not be suitable for blanket application of handcuffing in all cases falling under this category.
- Additionally, Clause 43(3) of the erstwhile BNSS permitted the use of handcuffs while arresting habitual offenders who escaped from custody or those committing specific offences like human trafficking and counterfeiting, among others.
Changes introduced:
- The parliamentary panel’s recommendation to delete “economic offences” from this provision has been incorporated in the new Bill.
- Although the earlier BNSS had an extra line on offences against the state to include those that endanger the country’s sovereignty, integrity, and unity, the new provision simply mandates using handcuffs for committing an “offence against the state.”
- This could mean that the use of handcuffs for arresting people committing such offences has been made more discretionary.
- In addition, the new provision extends the use of handcuffs to persons being produced before a court as well.
Mercy Petitions:
- Clause 473(1) of the erstwhile BNSS allowed convicts undergoing death sentences or their legal heirs or relatives to file mercy petitions while providing the procedure and time frame for the same.
- After being informed by jail authorities about the disposal of the petition of a convict sentenced to death, he, his legal heir, or a relative can submit a mercy petition within 30 days to the Governor. If rejected, the person can petition the President within 60 days. No appeal against the order of the President shall lie in any court.
- The earlier provision also said that prior to submitting the plea before the Governor or the President, it may be presented to the Centre or the state government’s Home Department.
- However, the panel suggested constituting a quasi-judicial board to deal with commutation and remission matters rather than leaving such judicial functions to the Executive’s discretion. It also proposed that a time frame be provided within which mercy petitions would be heard.
Changes introduced:
- Besides changing the provision’s numbering from clause 473 to 472, the new Bill has deleted the provision that allowed mercy petitions to be forwarded to the Home Department of the state government or the Centre for review.
- Although Clause 473(7) said, “No appeal shall lie in any Court against the order of the President made under article 72,” the modified Clause 472(7) makes the Governor’s orders under Article 161 unappealable, thereby broadening the scope of what cannot be challenged.
Preventive detention powers:
- Clause 172(2) of the BNSS expanded the police’s powers while taking preventive action. It allowed police officers to detain or remove persons resisting, refusing, ignoring, or disregarding to conform to any direction given by them under sub-section (1) and take them before a Judicial Magistrate or, in petty cases, release them “when the occasion is past.”
- However, the panel suggested that the time period for such detention should be specified, and the words “release him when the occasion is past” need to be clarified to remove ambiguity.
Changes introduced:
- The new Bill adds a time limit to this provision. It says the person detained may be taken to a magistrate or, in petty cases, be released as soon as possible, within 24 hours. Moreover, “judicial magistrate” in the old BNSS has been replaced by “Magistrate” now.
Community Service:
- The erstwhile BNSS had included “community service” as a penal measure for offences like attempting suicide, restraining exercise of lawful power theft, defamation of public functionaries, and appearing in public places while intoxicated and causing annoyance. However, it was silent on the definition of “community service.”
Changes introduced:
- The explanation to Clause 23 of the new BNSS defines “community service” to mean work which the Court may order a convict to perform as a form of punishment that benefits the community, for which he shall not be entitled to any remuneration.
- The Bill also adds community service as punishment for unlawfully engaging public servants in trade and non-appearance in response to a proclamation under Section 84.
