Editorial 1 : Ozone hole, filling up now: What this means for climate action
Context:
- Recently, UN-backed scientific panel has reported, the ozone ‘hole’, once considered to be the gravest danger to planetary life, is now expected to be completely repaired by 2066.
- In fact, it is only the ozone layer over Antarctica — where the hole is the most prominent — which will take a long time to heal completely. Over the rest of the world, the ozone layer is expected to be back to where it was in 1980 by 2040 itself.
Role of Monetary protocol in recovery of Ozone hole:
- The recovery of the ozone layer has been made possible by the successful elimination of some harmful industrial chemicals, together referred to as Ozone Depleting Substances or ODSs, through the implementation of the 1989 Montreal Protocol.
- The assessment has reported that nearly 99 per cent of the substances banned by the Montreal Protocol have now been eliminated from use, resulting in a slow but definite recovery of the ozone layer.
|
About Montreal Protocol:
|
Damage to the ozone layer
- Ozone (chemically, a molecule having three Oxygen atoms, or O3) is found mainly in the upper atmosphere, an area called stratosphere, between 10 and 50 km from the Earth’s surface.
- It is critical for planetary life, since it absorbs ultraviolet rays coming from the Sun. UV rays are known to cause skin cancer and many other diseases and deformities in plants and animals.
- The depletion of the ozone layer, first noticed in the early 1980s, used to be the biggest environmental threat before climate change came along.
- Though the problem is commonly referred to as the emergence of a ‘hole’ in the ozone layer, it is actually just a reduction in concentration of the ozone molecules. Even in the normal state, ozone is present in extremely low concentrations in the stratosphere. Where the ‘layer’ is supposed to be the thickest, there are no more than a few molecules of ozone for every million air molecules.
- In the 1980s, scientists began to notice a sharp drop in the concentration of ozone. This drop was much more pronounced over the South Pole, which was later linked to the unique meteorological conditions —
- temperature, pressure, wind speed and direction — that prevail over Antarctica. The ozone hole over Antarctica is the biggest during the months of September, October, and November.
- By the middle of 1980s, scientists had figured out that the chief cause of ozone depletion was the use of a class of industrial chemicals that contained chlorine, bromine or fluorine. The most common of these were the chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, that were used extensively in the airconditioning, refrigeration, paints, and furniture industries.
Improvement in the situation
- The ozone hole has been steadily improving since 2000, thanks to the effective implementation of the Montreal Protocol.
- The latest scientific assessment has said that if current policies continued to be implemented, the ozone layer was expected to recover to 1980 values by 2066 over Antarctica, by 2045 over the Arctic, and by 2040 for the rest of the world.
- The elimination of ozone-depleting substances has an important climate change co-benefit as well.
- These substances also happen to be powerful greenhouse gases, several of them hundreds or even thousands of times more dangerous than carbon dioxide, the most abundant greenhouse gas and the main driver of global warming.
- The report said that global compliance to the Montreal Protocol would ensure the avoidance of 0.5 to 1 degree Celsius of warming by 2050. This means that if the use of CFCs and other similar chemicals had continued to grow the way it did before they were banning
Recent, amendment to Montreal Protocol (Kigali Amendment)
- While keeping climate change objective in mind, the Montreal Protocol was amended in 2016 to extend its mandate over hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, that have replaced the CFCs in industrial use.
- HFCs do not cause much damage to the ozone layer — the reason they were not originally banned — but are very powerful greenhouse gases.
- The Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol seeks to eliminate 80-90 per cent of the HFCs currently in use by the year 2050. This is expected to prevent another 0.3 to 0.5 degree Celsius of global warming by the turn of the century.
Precedent for climate action
- The success of the Montreal Protocol in repairing the ozone hole is often offered as a model for climate action. It is argued that emissions of greenhouse gases can also similarly be curtailed to arrest rapidly rising global temperatures.
- However, the parallels of elimination of ODSs with greenhouse gases are limited. The use of ODSs, though extensive, was restricted to some specific industries. Their replacements were readily available, even if at a slightly higher cost initially.
- The impact of banning these ozone-depleting chemicals was therefore limited to these specific sectors. With some incentives, these sectors have recovered from the initial disruption and are thriving again.
- The case of fossil fuels is very different. Emission of carbon dioxide is inextricably linked to the harnessing of energy. Almost every economic activity leads to carbon dioxide emissions.
- Even the so-called renewable energies, like solar or wind, have considerable carbon footprints right now, because their manufacturing, transport, and operation involves the use of fossil fuels.
- The emissions of methane, the other major greenhouse gas, comes mainly from agricultural practices and livestock. The impact of restraining greenhouse gas emissions is not limited to a few industries or economic sectors, but affects the entire economy, and also has implications for the quality of life, human lifestyles and habits and behaviours.
- Climate change, no doubt, is a far more difficult and complex problem than dealing with ozone depletion.
Way forward/Conclusion:
- Global community can learn from it , how all nations come together for a single cause results into positive outcome in dedicated time framework.
- Similar initiatives can be adopted by the global communities with certain modifications for Greenhouse gases reduction and counter the climate change
Editorial 2 : Governor VS Government
Recent Context: Recently, there was political turmoil during the governor addressal speech in Tamil Nadu. The ruling party DMK claimed that governor of state deviated from given address speech.
Governor as a vital link between centre-state relation:
- “Governor” is neither a decorative emblem nor a glorified cipher. His powers are limited but he has an important constitutional role to play in the governance of the state and in strengthening federalism.
- He /she is the head of the state and take oath of “preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution”.
- Deviating from its actual role or politicization of post governor, results into strain between center-state relation which hamper the basic principle of federalism
Does a governor have the right to edit the address prepared by the government?
- The governor is an integral part of the legislative assembly. He calls its sessions and he dissolves the House.
- Under Article 176(2(b), he has the right to address the first session of the House.
- This address is an integral part of constitutional symbolism and has huge significance.
- Parliamentary democracy being the basic structure of our Constitution, this is the prerogative of the Cabinet though Article 174 does say that the governor from time to time summons the assembly to meet at such time and place “he thinks fit”.
- Governors have no business to question the purpose of convening the sessions of the House.
- A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Nabam Rebia (2016) had observed that the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh, J P Rajkhowa, who advanced the session of the assembly without the advice of the chief minister, had exceeded his jurisdiction as he had no discretion in convening the assembly session.
Certain HC judgements related to the incident:
- Justice B N Banerjee of the Calcutta High Court in Andul Gafoor Habibullah v. Speaker, West Bengal Assembly (1966) that the governor cannot decline to deliver his address and refuse to fulfil his constitutional duty.
- Thus, the address under Article 176 is mandatory. However, the HC held that when the governor fails to deliver his address under Article 176 and walks out of the House after laying down the address on the table of the House, this is mere irregularity, not illegality.
- Calcutta HC in March , 1969 at the time of then governor of West Bengal, Dharma Vira, held the
- governor has the right to delete or not read irrelevant portions or portions which do not deal with the policy of the government. He observed that “the Governor can exercise his discretion in leaving out of his address the irrelevant matter.
- The address is meant to guide the legislature in respect of the legislative programme to be taken up by the government. He may cut down the irrelevant issues, which have nothing to do with the policy and the programmes of the state legislature and which may be calculated to mislead the legislature itself”.
- But in the same year, D C Pawate, the governor of Punjab, had read the whole address including the portion critical of his action of dismissing the government.
How Governors editing/deleting the speech may indeed create a constitutional crisis:
- Governors editing/deleting the speech may indeed create a constitutional crisis. The chief minister may refuse to defend the address in his response at the end of the debate on the governor’s address and with the chief minister commanding a majority, the House may reject the resolution on the governor’s speech.
- When the governor’s/president’s address faces such a defeat, it is considered a no-confidence motion and the chief minister or the prime minister as the case may be, needs to resign. S
- Such a resignation for something that the government did not include in the ceremonial address but the governor had said on its own would not only be grossly unjust and unethical but absolutely undemocratic
Conclusion:
- Therefore, while framing the presidential address, the Chief ministers need not to show prudence and not include irrelevant facts or statements that have little to do with the jurisdiction of the state government and business the House has to take up for deliberations during that particular session.
- The governor reigns but does not rule. His primary role as a sagacious counsellor is “to be consulted, to warn and to encourage”. Both governors and chief ministers, as constitutional functionaries, should respect each other and at least have a working relationship.