Cow dung to drive cars 5,500km in India without causing pollution
After going through a purification process, compressed biogas (CBG) can run a car over 5,500km.
Uttar Pradesh's rural economy is set to get a boost as, for the first time, methane will be produced from cow dung on a large scale, producing fuel that can power vehicles over long distances, creating rural jobs, and strengthening the green economy.
The experts on the matter are of the view that cow dung from a single cow can yield methane, which is equivalent to 225 litres of petrol every year. After going through a purification process, compressed biogas (CBG) can run a car over 5,500km.
Uttar Pradesh's Go-Seva-Aayog Chairman Shyam Bihari Gupta said on Aug 10 that from stray bovines, the state receives an average of 5.4 million kg of dung per day.
This dung can be processed in CBG plants and used for purposes ranging from methane production to household cooking fuel in rural areas, heating fuel for small industries, and as an organic solution in natural farming. This can potentially generate annual earnings worth hundreds of thousands of rupees.
The OSD of the Go-Go-Sewa-Aayog, Dr Anurag Srivastava, added, 'Methane farming can become an alternative to fossil fuels in the future. The UP Government's initiative in this area is promoting the concept of 'Waste to Wealth,' which will provide effective fuel for transportation and the green economy.
'The methane produced from the dung of each bovine is a form of natural gas, which is both environmentally friendly and economical.' THE STATESMAN/ASIA NEWS NETWORK
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
10 minutes ago
- CNA
What happens when she earns more than him? High-earning women get real about dating, money and relationships
There is no point skirting around the issue: Money plays a significant role in the foundation of a healthy relationship. It is not about how much money you have. Money, or rather the process of earning it, brings other pertinent relationship topics into the spotlight – topics such as trust, communication, shared values and maturity. 'I have never been in a relationship where the man was more financially successful than I,' said Jo-anne Peng, a 46-year-old business development manager who earns a monthly salary of S$18,000. 'In each new relationship, I convinced myself that as long as I am financially comfortable and that the guy isn't expecting me to give him money, it's all good.' Peng has never asked her partners how much they were earning, but she guesses it was 30 to 50 per cent less than her. She told CNA Women that although this mentality meant she was never dependent on her partners, it also created a situation where she found it difficult to 'be a woman'. 'Over time, I forgot how to bring my feminine self into the relationship. The practical matters took over, and I neglected my emotional needs. And always, the love would die,' said Peng. Is Peng being dramatic? According to Aloysius Tay, principal psychologist at The Psychology Clinic, she is not. 'Jo-anne's feelings are completely legitimate. She is expressing how others in similar circumstances would feel but stay silent about. When one partner carries most of the financial load, it can lead to emotional burnout because they are expected to take care of the home and meet the other person's emotional needs.' While men also feel this strain, Tay said women often feel additional pressure because of expectations that they have, to be both strong providers and nurturing partners. 'They are stuck in a 'be everything' mode and this makes it hard for them to relax, feel supported, or even connected to their emotional selves,' he said. FINDING THE RIGHT BALANCE IS KEY But financial equality can present itself in another form. For Jessica Lim, a 41-year-old communications manager who has been with her partner for almost 23 years, financial success is not the same thing as financial values. She said: 'The more important thing is we need to have the same financial values. For example, we should have the same attitude towards spending and saving.' Lim believes both her husband and her are financially compatible despite the difference in the sizes of their pay cheques. The balance, she said, comes from the level of job security they face in their respective fields. She said: 'In my situation, layoffs are not uncommon in my industry. I've been made redundant twice but my husband's job is pretty secure and pays a decent bonus. So even though I earn more, I know I can lean on him for financial support when times are uncertain.' Amy Ang, a 35-year-old working in finance, holds the same belief that a man can make up for his lack of earning power in other ways. 'Emotional safety is what I look for at this stage in my life,' she said. Ang, who is single and earns about S$13,000 a month, feels that men who are financially successful may not be ready to commit so easily to one woman. 'I'm fine with dating a man who earns less but not to the extent that I have to change my lifestyle. What I look for is a man who has a plan for his finances and lives within his means.' Tay, the psychologist, added: 'The success of a relationship depends on more than income dynamics. It is about mutual respect, emotional intelligence, and shared values. What matters most is the willingness to share responsibility and power, and show each other appreciation for what they bring to the table.' "I DON'T NEED A MAN'S MONEY BUT I NEED A MAN WITH MONEY" In recent times, social media has presented content talking about 'feminine energy' and how women need to be in their 'feminine selves' to thrive in a relationship. 'Indeed, this observation has psychological support but it's more about people feeling emotionally fulfilled when they aren't weighed down by outside pressures, like financial strain,' Tay said. Peng, who is recently divorced, is adamant that for her next relationship, she wants a partner who is equally or more financially successful. 'I don't need a man's money but I need a man with money.' She explained that money is the result of a person working hard to build their career and ultimately, their legacy. 'I want someone who knows what it is like to worry about security, to acknowledge my worries about the future. When I'm tired, I also hope that my partner would be there to support me.' For Peng, money is not just a symbol of security, power, identity, and the ego – it is also about a person's mindset and how her partner can show up effectively in their relationship. It may look like she is fixated on 'who is earning more' but in reality, she is looking for a person who can support her goals and wellbeing. ARE HIGH-EARNING WOMEN PERCEIVED AS "TOO MUCH"? In Singapore, hypergamy (marrying up) is still very much a social expectation. However, rather than seeing high-earning women as 'picky', we should understand that they are likely being 'self-protective'. 'Some women may internalise the notion that their success restricts their 'romantic eligibility' and when they are with a man who is less successful, the man's insecurity will negatively impact the relationship,' said Tay. The reality may not be as harsh as these women think. Hayley Quinn, a dating coach whose TedX talk Searching for Love to Escape Ourselves attracted over 3 million viewers, writes on her website that it's not that men don't like successful women, but they just don't have it high on their priority list. And, believing that men are intimidated by a woman's success disempowers women in the dating field. She writes that while many men may not have much money in the bank, they also don't discriminate against successful women. 'The right relationship gives you the support and stability you need to reach your goals,' she said. It doesn't matter if you perceive money to be the dealmaker/breaker. What matters at the end of the day is going into every relationship with authenticity and that your partner shares, not breaks, your vision of life. 'Success is not the punishment. How men, women and society react to it, that's the punishment,' said Tay.
Business Times
10 minutes ago
- Business Times
Taming the AI ‘beast' without losing ourselves
THE rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in the workplace is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it promises unparalleled efficiency, cost savings and innovation. On the other hand, it fuels anxiety, job insecurity and mental strain for millions of workers. As AI continues its relentless march into every corner of the workplace, the psychological toll on employees cannot be ignored. The question is no longer whether AI will reshape work (it already has), but how we can harness its power without sacrificing human well-being. The challenge is not insignificant. The beauty: AI's promise AI's transformative potential is undeniable. In law, tools such as Ross Intelligence and Casetext analyse legal precedents in seconds, saving lawyers hours of painstaking research. AI-driven contract platforms such as LexisNexis and Kira Systems flag risks and suggest edits with near-human precision. For accountants, AI automates data entry, compliance checks and even audit sampling, reducing errors and freeing up time for higher-value work. A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU Friday, 3 pm Thrive Money, career and life hacks to help young adults stay ahead of the curve. Sign Up Sign Up The gains are real. It is estimated that lawyers in the US, thanks to AI, could reclaim 266 million hours of billable time a year – roughly US$100,000 in additional annual revenue per lawyer. Similar efficiencies ripple across industries, from healthcare to finance. AI doesn't just streamline tasks; it redefines what's possible. But this efficiency has a human cost. The uncomfortable (unarticulated) challenge is clear: These lawyers must now quickly uncover new value-added services to replace work that AI performs more quickly and cheaply. The beast: AI's psychological toll The dark side of AI's workplace revolution is the pervasive fear of obsolescence for the individual. In 2023, Pew Research found that 62 per cent of workers worry that AI could replace their jobs. Goldman Sachs estimates that 300 million jobs worldwide may be affected by AI and its algorithmic automation potential. The disruption is widespread, affecting low-skilled roles as well as professionals in law, accounting and even creative fields. This AI challenge has a stark impact on individuals' mental health. Chronic job insecurity breeds stress, depression and burnout. The American Psychological Association links automation anxiety to decreased job satisfaction and heightened workplace tension. A 2023 study by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development tied rapid upskilling demands to rising burnout rates, while Gallup found 48 per cent of workers feel overwhelmed by the pace of technological change, finding it hard to keep up – much less compete – with AI. For those who do lose jobs to AI, the consequences are even grimmer. University of Cambridge research shows that communities hit by AI automation experience higher rates of substance abuse and suicide. Unemployed individuals are twice as likely to suffer mental health disorders, based on research from the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg. Put simply, AI's efficiency gains come with a high yet hidden tax on human well-being. Taming the beast: mitigation strategies So, how do we reconcile AI's benefits with its human costs? The answer lies in proactive, multipronged strategies that prioritise both productivity and mental health. Upskilling is often touted as the antidote to AI-driven job loss. Companies such as Amazon and Google have invested billions in training programmes – Amazon's 'Upskilling 2025', for instance, pledged US$1.2 billion towards AI and cloud computing education for its employees. These initiatives are critical, but insufficient on their own. The pressure to constantly reskill can be a source of stress in itself. This is similar to 'technostress', the strain experienced by employees in digital fields who must continuously learn new software and tools. Reskilling programmes must be paired with career and personal counselling, flexible timelines and realistic expectations. Otherwise, we risk trading job insecurity for burnout. Employers must recognise and treat AI-related stress as a workplace hazard. Access to mental health programmes, therapists and peer support networks can help employees navigate this AI-induced uncertainty. A 2023 Deloitte report highlighted that companies investing in mental health saw not just happier employees, but higher productivity. Workers in organisations with robust mental health support saw a 30 per cent drop in absenteeism. Transparency and candour in the workplace are also key. Workers need clear communication about how AI will be integrated in the workplace, which roles may change, and how the company plans to support them. The principle behind this approach is simple: Uncertainty fuels anxiety, whereas clarity fosters trust. Preserving human connection Unfortunately, AI's rise has coincided with a decline in workplace socialisation. Chatbots, virtual assistants and remote work tools reduce in-person interaction, exacerbating employee isolation. The American Psychological Association notes that remote workers relying heavily on AI report higher levels of isolation and loneliness. Employers should design workflows that balance automation with human collaboration. Hybrid models, team-building activities and 'AI-free' zones can help maintain needed social bonds. After all, productivity is not just about output; it is also about people. But corporate initiatives alone will not solve the systemic challenges. Policymakers must step in with stronger social safety nets – universal healthcare, unemployment benefits tailored for displaced workers, and incentives for companies to retain human labour in the workforce. Ethical AI frameworks are also essential. Tech developers should prioritise tools that augment human work rather than replace it outright. The goal should be partnership and optimisation, not displacement. This may seem idealistic, but it is critical to the individual employee, the community and, ultimately, society. Finding a way AI is here to stay. The choice is not between embracing it or rejecting it. Rather, it is about shaping its integration with humanity in mind. OpenAI's Sam Altman mused about the potential for a one-person, billion-dollar company powered by AI, but we must ask: At what cost? This is not a zero-sum game. AI can drive progress without eroding mental well-being, but only if we act deliberately and intentionally. Employers, policymakers and tech leaders must collaborate to ensure that the AI revolution lifts people up rather than leaves them behind. The stakes are high. If we fail, we risk winning the battle for efficiency (and technology), but losing the war for human mental wellness and relevance in the workplace. Should this happen, it would be a human tragedy of epic proportions – and one entirely of our own doing. The writer is the group general counsel of Jardine Cycle & Carriage, a member of the Jardine Matheson Group. He sits on several commercial boards, including that of the charity Jardines Mindset, which focuses on mental health, and the global guiding council of the US mental health charity One Mind at Work.
Business Times
10 minutes ago
- Business Times
US-India relations at a crossroads
THE relationship between the US and India, once hailed as one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century, is now under its most significant strain in decades. What began as a promising strategic alliance built on shared democratic values and mutual economic interests has devolved into a transactional relationship marked by escalating trade disputes, divergent geopolitical priorities, and fundamental disagreements over India's foreign policy autonomy. This deterioration manifested on Aug 6, when US President Donald Trump imposed a punitive 50 per cent tariff on Indian goods , doubling the previously announced rate. Justified as a penalty for India's continued Russian oil imports, the move is more than a trade dispute – it signals a breakdown in the strategic understanding that has underpinned US-India relations for two decades. The move surprised many, given the historically warm rapport between Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, once seen as a stabilising force in the bilateral relationship. Yet, current tensions suggest that even strong personal ties cannot overcome fundamental policy disagreements in an increasingly polarised global environment. Core disagreements At the heart of the crisis lies India's refusal to abandon its relationship with Russia, despite sustained pressure from Washington. India's continued purchase of Russian oil and military equipment has become a litmus test of its commitment to the Western alliance system, at least from the US perspective. For India, however, these ties represent core elements of its strategic autonomy, a principle that has guided Indian foreign policy since independence and remains non-negotiable for New Delhi. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up This disagreement exposes a fundamental disconnect: The US has increasingly viewed India as a junior partner in its broader strategy to contain China and challenge the Russia-China axis, while New Delhi has consistently maintained that its alignment with Washington is based on mutual benefit, not subordination to American priorities. ' Unrealistic expectations on both sides compound the situation. American demands for greater access to India's agricultural markets run counter to India's domestic political imperatives, while Indian hopes for preferential treatment in trade talks clash with the US' growing protectionism. ' Perhaps more troubling for the relationship's long-term trajectory is the apparent return to what Indian strategists call 'hyphenation' – the Cold War-era practice of treating India and Pakistan as equals in US foreign policy. Trump's recent diplomatic interventions in Indo-Pakistani disputes have revived Indian concerns about America's reliability as a strategic partner. This represents a significant reversal of the 'de-hyphenation' policy initiated during the George W Bush administration, and undermines a key achievement of the last two decades of bilateral engagement. Economic and geopolitical friction The economic dimension of US-India relations faces equally serious challenges. India supplies nearly half of all generic drugs consumed in the US, saving American consumers billions of dollars annually in healthcare costs. The pharmaceutical sector, along with information technology services, has been a cornerstone of the bilateral economic relationship. However, the new tariff regime threatens to disrupt these established supply chains and could force both countries to seek alternative arrangements. Unrealistic expectations on both sides compound the situation. American demands for greater access to India's agricultural markets run counter to India's domestic political imperatives, while Indian hopes for preferential treatment in trade talks clash with the US' growing protectionism. The deterioration in US-India relations is set against the backdrop of global geopolitical realignment. India's participation in multilateral forums such as Brics and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and continued engagement with the Quad (alongside the US, Japan and Australia), reflects New Delhi's commitment to a multipolar world order. ' The era of grand strategic partnerships based on shared values and long-term vision may be giving way to more pragmatic, issue-specific cooperation between countries with different worldviews. ' This approach increasingly conflicts with Washington's binary worldview, where countries are expected to choose sides in the emerging 'Great Power' competition. The implications of this divergence extend beyond bilateral relations to the broader Indo-Pacific strategy that has been central to US foreign policy in recent years. If India continues to drift away from close alignment with the US, it could alter the strategic balance in the Indo-Pacific region and complicate US efforts to counter Chinese influence. Crucial next steps Despite these tensions, the US-India partnership remains too important for both countries to allow it to deteriorate completely. Common challenges, from the rise of China to climate change and terrorism, necessitate cooperation. But any path forward will require a fundamental recalibration of mutual expectations. The US must accept India's strategic autonomy, while India must recognise that continued access to American markets and technology comes with certain obligations. The current crisis may ultimately serve as a necessary correction to an overly optimistic assessment of US-India convergence that has dominated policy thinking in both countries. A more transactional relationship, while less emotionally satisfying, may prove more realistic and durable, given the constraints faced by both democratic governments. The tensions currently shaking US-India relations reflect deeper questions about the nature of international partnerships in an increasingly multipolar world. The era of grand strategic partnerships based on shared values and long-term vision may be giving way to more pragmatic, issue-specific cooperation between countries with different worldviews. Whether this represents a temporary setback or a permanent reorientation of one of the world's most important bilateral relationships will depend largely on the two leaders' ability to find common ground while respecting each other's core interests and constraints. The coming months will be crucial. The choices made in Washington and New Delhi will determine whether this partnership weathers the storm or unravels, with far-reaching implications for the geopolitical landscape of the Indo-Pacific region and beyond.
