Latest news with #KyotoProtocol
Indian Express
5 days ago
- General
- Indian Express
Methane mitigation, key to slowing global warming
— Renuka Reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions is crucial to fighting climate change. After carbon dioxide, methane is the most potent GHG responsible for approximately a third of global warming. It is a colourless, odourless gas that has both natural as well as anthropogenic sources. Naturally, it is produced in a wetland due to the decomposition of vegetation under water. Other natural sources include termites, volcanoes, wildfires, etc. The primary sectors responsible for anthropogenic methane emissions are: Agriculture, which accounts for 40% of emissions and includes animal manure and rice cultivation. After this, the fossil fuel sector accounts for 35% of methane emissions. Waste management is responsible for roughly 20% of emissions, originating from the decomposition of organic matter in landfills, open dumps, and wastewater treatment systems. Methane is widely used as a fuel for electricity generation, heating, cooking, and in industrial processes. It also serves as a key feedstock for hydrogen, ammonia, and methanol production, and is used in transportation (CNG/LNG) and as renewable biogas. Despite its utility, methane emerged as a major climate concern. It has a shorter lifespan compared to CO₂ but is much more efficient in trapping radiation. As the climate crisis intensifies, tackling methane emissions has become an urgent and impactful strategy for reducing GHG emissions. Reducing methane emissions has long been a part of climate change mitigation efforts. The 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) laid the foundation to combat climate change by adopting the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) and placing the obligation on developed countries to reduce GHG emissions. However, being just a framework convention, the UNFCCC didn't specify the GHGs or set binding targets. To implement the convention, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 and came into force in 2005. It listed six GHGs, and methane was one of them. The Kyoto Protocol imposed binding emission reduction targets on developed countries. The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, marked a shift towards a voluntary approach (nationally determined approach), while still expecting developed countries to take the lead in setting emissions targets. In recent years, abating methane emissions has been recognised as one of the most effective and affordable strategies to reduce global warming. At COP 26, the Global Methane Pledge (GMP) was launched as a voluntary international initiative with its primary goal of reducing global methane emissions by at least 30 per cent from 2020 levels by 2030. To enhance global reporting on methane emissions, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) also launched the International Methane Emission Observatory (IMEO). To further support methane data collection, the UNEP launched the Methane Alert and Response System (MARS) at COP27 (2022). MARS is a global satellite detection and notification system that provides data on methane emissions. Building on these efforts, COP 28 established the Oil and Gas Decarbonisation Charter (ODGC), which aims at accelerating the decarbonisation of the oil and gas sector. The charter aims at achieving net-zero upstream methane emissions by 2030. At COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, over 30 countries endorsed the Declaration on Reducing Methane from Organic Waste, marking a significant advancement in global climate initiatives. This declaration targets methane emissions from organic waste, such as food scraps, agricultural residues, and sewage, which account for nearly 20% of anthropogenic methane emissions. The Global Methane Initiative (GMI), launched in 2004 as the Methane to Markets Partnership, is an initiative to foster collaborations to reduce methane emissions. It works in collaboration with other key international environmental initiatives and agencies such as the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC), the Global Methane Hub, and the World Bank Group to reduce global methane emissions. Over the past two decades, GMI has helped raise global awareness about methane's climate and health impacts, fostered international cooperation, and mobilised investments in methane mitigation efforts. GMI has also been a key sponsor of various events on methane mitigation. One such event is Methane Mitigation: Technology & Innovation Summit, which will be held on June 2-4, 2025, in Austin, Texas, US. Organised by the Industrial Decarbonisation Network, the summit will bring together energy companies, NGOs and technology innovators. It will serve as a knowledge-sharing platform dedicated to reducing methane emissions from the energy sector. The discussion will largely be focused on exploring cutting-edge solutions and best practices for measuring, monitoring, and reducing methane emissions in the oil and gas sector. India has not signed the Global Methane Pledge, primarily due to concern over the shift in focus from CO2 – which has a lifespan of around 100 years – to Methane – which has a lifespan of 12 years. India's major sources of methane emissions are the livestock sector through enteric fermentation and agriculture through paddy cultivation. These sources are linked to the subsistence activities of small and marginal farmers. Implementing the GMP could negatively impact farmers' incomes, rice production, and India's significant role in global rice exports. Also, these emissions in India are considered 'survival emissions' – essential for food security – not 'luxury emissions', unlike in developed nations where agriculture is industrialised. To reduce methane emissions, no additional burden can be imposed on the small farmers who are already economically marginalised. Nonetheless, India has undertaken measures to reduce methane emissions. Under the National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA), the government is promoting methane-reducing practices in rice cultivation. Methane mitigation initiatives such as the system for rice intensification, direct seeded rice, and the crop diversification programme are being implemented. Also, to reduce methane production in livestock initiatives such as breed improvement and balanced rationing, have been taken by The Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying (DAHD), through the National Livestock Mission. Programmes like GOBAR-Dhan and the National Biogas and Organic Manure Programme incentivise the use of cattle waste for biogas production and organic manure, promoting clean energy and lowering greenhouse gas emissions in rural areas. Methane is responsible for around 30% of global warming. If left unaddressed, global methane emissions caused by human activities are expected to increase by as much as 13% between 2020 and 2030. Reducing methane emissions is the most important climate step the world can take. However, it is easier said than done, especially for a developing country like India, where methane emissions are related to food security. To tackle the situation, a substantial flow of climate finance from developed to developing countries would enable ambitious climate action, including slashing methane emissions. Additionally, crop diversification schemes would aid the efforts by encouraging a shift away from monoculture towards a more varied and sustainable agricultural system. Similarly, the energy sector, which also accounts for significant methane emissions, offers some of the most immediate and cost-effective opportunities for methane reduction. Developed countries, having historically been the largest producers and consumers of fossil fuels, are well-positioned to lead reforms. They may choose to incentivise methane reduction in developing countries through climate finance, technology transfer, and capacity building. Moreover, cutting methane emissions from the fossil fuel sector is easier to detect and measure and having relatively few large companies as actors can make the enforcement a lot easier as compared to the agriculture sector, where solutions are linked to livelihoods and food security. The upcoming Methane Mitigation Summit has the potential to accelerate action in the energy sector and success here could set the stage for broader efforts across harder to abate sectors. Post Read Questions Why has reducing methane emission been recognised as one of the most effective and affordable strategies to reduce global warming? Why has India not joined the Global Methane Pledge? Analyse the socio-economic and agricultural factors behind this decision. Discuss measures India has undertaken to reduce methane emissions. How do programmes like GOBAR-Dhan and the National Biogas and Organic Manure Programme contribute to methane mitigation? Evaluate the effectiveness of sector-specific approaches (such as energy and agriculture) in addressing methane emissions. What lessons can be drawn from India's domestic efforts? Analyse the role of international platforms like COP summits in shaping methane mitigation strategies. How effective have these efforts been in addressing methane emission? (Renuka is a Doctoral researcher at Himachal Pradesh National law university, Shimla.) Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Zoetic Global Announces Leadership Transition Following the Passing of Co-Founder and Chairman Jerome Ringo
ORLANDO, Fla., May 28, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Zoetic Global, a leader in delivering innovative solutions for energy, water, refrigerants, and rare-earth, today announced changes to its executive leadership following the unexpected passing of its co-founder and Executive Chairman, Jerome Ringo, on April 30, 2025. Co-founder Avery Hong, who has served as CEO since 2015, will assume the additional role of Chairman of the Board. Chris Thompson, previously Chief Technology Officer, has been appointed President. The leadership changes, effective immediately, follow a comprehensive transition process designed to ensure operational continuity. "Jerome Ringo's vision and commitment to global sustainability have shaped Zoetic's mission and impact," said Avery Hong. "We are committed to advancing and building on the foundation Jerome established. Chris's promotion to President is a natural progression. He has been a critical member of our business development team, and his deep understanding of our technology portfolio and business acumen have helped secure many of the initiatives we are working on. Our operations and strategic initiatives continue without interruption under our new leadership structure." Remembering Jerome RingoJerome Ringo was a pioneering environmental leader and business executive whose career spanned over four decades in industry, advocacy, and international development. Born and raised in Lake Charles, Louisiana, Jerome's early experiences led him to a lifelong dedication to environmental protection and economic opportunity. Jerome led the Apollo Alliance, uniting labor, business, and environmental interests to advance clean energy and economic growth. As co-founder and Executive Chairman of Zoetic Global, he spearheaded the company's expansion into emerging markets, focusing on innovative solutions for energy security and sustainable development. Internationally recognized, Jerome represented the United States at the Kyoto Protocol negotiations and addressed global forums on climate and economic development. Jerome's leadership, integrity, and vision leave a lasting legacy at Zoetic and across the broader environmental and business communities. Leadership Continuity and Strategic FocusCo-founder Avery Hong brings extensive experience in international project finance, energy technology, and market expansion to his expanded role as Chairman and CEO. Under his leadership, Zoetic has established a strong presence in the rare earth and critical minerals sectors, supporting global supply chains and driving economic growth. Chris Thompson has a proven track record in innovation and operational excellence. With decades of experience leading technology and manufacturing organizations, he has delivered award-winning products and driven growth in highly regulated sectors. Chris will continue to propel Zoetic's growth by managing deal flow and fostering new business opportunities. He will also oversee daily operations and ensure the successful execution of Zoetic's strategic initiatives. Zoetic Global remains well-positioned to execute on existing contracts and pursue new opportunities in the critical minerals sector while advancing its data center and AI business. The company continues to focus on building its global business in rare earth and critical materials, leveraging its expertise and partnerships to deliver value for stakeholders and support sustainable economic development. Visit Zoetic Global for more information. About Zoetic GlobalZoetic Global is a sustainability-focused solutions provider dedicated to delivering essential energy, water, and technologies to areas in greatest need. Through collaboration with technology and strategic partners, Zoetic has curated a compelling portfolio of solutions to address critical issues. The name "Zoetic," meaning "pertaining to life," symbolizes the company's commitment to impactful solutions. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Zoetic Global
Time of India
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Climate negotiations: A process that fails, yet cannot be abandoned
The contrasting twin failures of Global Climate Action The history of over thirty years of climate negotiations is a story of contradictions. Binding commitments have failed, and so have non-binding commitments. Differentiation has collapsed, and non-differentiation has collapsed alongside it. Compliance mechanisms were abandoned, yet non-compliance mechanisms delivered nothing. Carbon credits, once predicted to command a price of $100 per ton, failed before they even shaped the global markets. Even without them, voluntary offsets failed to generate meaningful change. Every pathway—opposed in theory to its predecessor—has led to disappointment. Yet despite this repeated failure, the world must continue negotiating. Not because the process has worked, but because the cost of abandoning it may be far greater. The UNFCCC: A bold beginning, a long struggle Born in 1992 as one of the three Rio Conventions, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was revolutionary for its time, with the objective of preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, to ensure that food production is not threatened and enable sustainable economic development. It introduced the concept of 'common but differentiated responsibility,' accepting the reality that while climate change is a global challenge, responsibility for action must be weighed based on historical emissions, capacity, and economic development. The world was divided into Annex 1, comprising developed nations obligated to cut emissions, and Non-Annex 1, consisting of developing nations encouraged to pursue sustainable growth without binding targets. Kyoto's promise: Binding targets that failed The Kyoto Protocol, the first major instrument of the UNFCCC, established globally accepted CO₂-equivalent reduction targets for Annex 1 nations. In theory, the protocol ensured accountability by imposing compliance penalties, with any country missing its target facing deductions imposed on the next cycle of commitments. Yet Kyoto failed for reasons that became painfully evident by COP-6 in The Hague in 2000, where negotiations collapsed under political deadlock, forcing the world to reassemble at COP-6bis in Bonn in 2001 to salvage the Kyoto Protocol. And so it emerged, half born, half dead, but celebrations were emphatic: multilateralism had triumphed over unilateralism. Long hours that negotiators spent burning midnight oil over weeks was a bit like a symphony playing while the Titanic was sinking. USA, global leader in climate science, walked away, preferring bilateral actions over multilateral constraints. The protocol crumbled. Russia's surplus emissions, referred to as 'hot air,' meant that even countries that remained within Kyoto could meet their targets without reducing real emissions, using this surplus. Markets that were designed to enforce discipline became tools of convenience. Kyoto died not just because USA exited but because binding commitments exposed contradictions too great to sustain. Compliance mechanisms assumed that strict enforcement would drive progress, but when compliance threatened economic growth, nations diluted mechanisms beyond recognition or simply walked away. The Bali Roadmap: A moment of hope that led nowhere At COP-13 in Bali in 2007, the world attempted to revive multilateralism through the Bali Action Plan, which promised a new framework bridging the gap between developed and developing nations. It introduced the idea of voluntary mitigation plans for developing countries, alongside commitments for technology transfer and financial support. There was hope that a global process could balance emission reduction with sustainable development. Yet, despite optimism, Bali's roadmap never led to binding commitments. The same structural contradictions that plagued Kyoto—finance, differentiation, and enforcement—continued to haunt negotiations. Copenhagen's Collapse: The illusion of a breakthrough By COP-15 in Copenhagen in 2009, expectations were soaring. The world anticipated a legally binding successor to Kyoto, one that would finally produce enforceable global action. Instead, Copenhagen collapsed into chaos, yielding only the Copenhagen Accord—a non-binding political declaration that lacked enforcement, differentiation, or financial guarantees. The failure of Copenhagen was a turning point. It signalled the death of binding climate agreements, paving the way for voluntary pledges that would later define the Paris Agreement. Durban's shift toward voluntary commitments At COP-17 in Durban, South Africa, in 2011, the world formally abandoned the Kyoto model. The Durban Platform for Enhanced Action laid the foundation for a new global agreement, one that would apply to all nations equally—without differentiation, without binding targets, and without compliance mechanisms. By including major developing nations, it blurred historical responsibilities, yet failed to enforce action, cementing a shift toward voluntary commitments that set the stage for Paris's shortcomings. Durban set the stage for a new era of climate diplomacy, moving significantly away from equilibrium of commitments initially contemplated under the UNFCCC. Paris Agreement: Non-binding commitments that failed Having witnessed Kyoto collapse under the weight of binding obligations, the world embraced a voluntary approach with the Paris Agreement in 2015. Differentiation amongst nations in Annex 1 and Non-Annex 1, which remained frozen in time, was abandoned, and all countries committed to targets without legal enforcement. Nations set their own emissions pledges, often presenting business-as-usual scenarios as climate action. And the world celebrated, this time with USA. The Paris Agreement was celebrated for avoiding the rigidity of Kyoto—there were no compliance penalties, no top-down obligations, and no enforced differentiation. Yet Paris has not delivered, just as Kyoto did not. USA once again walked away in 2017, to join later and walk away again, stripping globalism of yet another foundational participant. Emissions continued to rise, and countries presented long-term climate plans without any direct consequences for inaction. If Kyoto failed because it forced compliance, Paris failed because it removed enforcement entirely. Negotiations continue, emissions grow Compounding this failure, global emissions have continued to climb, with total global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel and land use change estimated at 40.9 billion tonnes in 2023. Notably, fossil fuel emissions increased by 1.1% from 2022 (Global Carbon Project). China with 31 % and USA with 13% lead. Countries like India with 8% share of global emissions reflect its low per capita emissions (around 2.07 tCO₂ vs. 9.24 tCO₂ for China). Paris's voluntary pledges, often business-as-usual dressed as ambition, have failed to curb this growth, with UNEP projections estimating a 2.8°C rise by 2100. This relentless rise underscores the disconnect between negotiation rhetoric and reality. Notwithstanding this, almost all Conferences of Parties are considered a success, underlining the politics of climate negotiations. This optics-driven success masks inaction, as negotiators talk while emissions soar. The collapse of climate markets Market-based climate solutions crumbled in record time, with near-collapse of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and the decline in global carbon credit transactions. Kyoto's carbon credits collapsed as soon as buyers stopped seeing them as valuable for image-building. Developing nations, which had fought hard for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), abandoned the principle of using cleaner technologies in favour of immediate economic gains. The initial idea of CDM was to support technologies that led to lower emissions compared to business-as-usual practices, but this too eroded over time. Markets reacted swiftly. Emission reductions under CDM that were officially assessed to be real and measurable—called Certified Emission Reductions—fell out of favour, and corporations shifted toward Voluntary Emission Reductions, believing that self-regulation offered more credibility than broken compliance markets. In the end, neither delivered real progress. The mirage of climate finance The market failure was mirrored by the mirage of climate finance. Pledges of $100 billion annually by 2020, critical for developing nations, fell short, with only $83.3 billion mobilized in 2020, often as mislabelled aid or business-as-usual private sector projects labelled as climate action (OECD). The opaque accounting trust, eroded trust further, particularly for Non-Annex 1 countries reliant on support, highlighting yet another broken promise of global negotiations. Technology transfer and adaptation efforts met a similar fate—underfunded, symbolic, and ultimately ineffective. Contrasts that lead to the same failure Kyoto was rigid and failed. Paris was flexible and failed. Differentiation failed. Non-differentiation failed. Compliance failed. Non-compliance failed. Markets failed with a high price on carbon, and markets failed without a price on carbon. With every contradiction leading to failure, the question arises—where does the world go from here? Why the global process must continue despite failure The global process must persist, not because it has succeeded, but because it remains the only mechanism that exists. The cost of abandoning multilateral climate negotiations may be greater than the cost of keeping them alive, even in dysfunction. Without a structured process, the world will revert to fragmented, bilateral agreements, benefiting the powerful nations while leaving smaller states behind. Climate finance, already opaque, will become even more distorted, driven by donor interests rather than genuine emission reductions. The principle of technology transfer and capacity-building, weak as it stands, may vanish entirely, deepening inequality. Multilateralism may not be perfect, but it forces nations to remain accountable to the global conversation. Abandoning climate negotiations risks opening the door to unchecked national interests, where countries act in isolation, prioritizing competition over sustainability. Disconnect with 1.5°C/2°C targets The 1.5°C and 2°C targets were politically grandiose, but scientifically unrealistic. Adopted as compromises (EU's 1996 2°C goal, 2015's 1.5°C push by vulnerable nations), they are unattainable—1.1°C warming already brings extreme impacts, like 50.5°C days in a vulnerable South Asian region—yet dominate discourse while emissions soar. With 1.5°C out of reach and 2°C unlikely (UNEP), countries may choose comfort of optics over truthful ambition needed to soothe a warming world. Globally, tropics face 52°C days by 2050 (IPCC), while Antarctica may see liveable zones, yet rising seas threaten millions. Adopting a differentiated ambition framework within an overall global 1.5°C to 2.0°C framework, where nations set tailored targets reflecting differential impacts, vulnerability, and capacity, supported by finance and technology may enhance outcomes. Varying impacts, like extreme heat or rising seas, demand tailored ambition. A future defined by imperfect continuation Kyoto collapsed under rigidity. Paris faltered due to leniency. Every approach has collapsed under its own contradictions. And yet, we must continue—not because we expect success, but because failure to negotiate is worse than failure within negotiations. The world cannot afford to abandon climate diplomacy, even when outcomes disappoint. The mere presence of global negotiations keeps the issue alive. Nations may underperform, but at least the conversation forces them to acknowledge their role. Walking away entirely would mean accepting climate injustice, technological monopolization, and global division. So where does the world move from here? It needs to move forward, knowing that more climate conferences may fail—but recognizing that to abandon them altogether would be an even greater catastrophe. From Failure to Function: A new paradigm built on real incentives The world must now move beyond the binary of binding vs. voluntary, of markets vs. regulation, of differentiation vs. sameness. What is needed is not another format of climate agreement but a different foundation of climate action—one that works with the grain of national priorities rather than against it. Three transitions could anchor this new thinking. Recognizing carbon as a pollutant By 2027, nations should establish carbon laws setting mandatory CO2 emission limits, guided by UNFCCC benchmarks within a global framework, supported by GCF-funded law development, like biodiversity frameworks. Despite its global nature, carbon emissions remain excluded from most national environmental laws. They are treated as abstractions rather than pollutants, and this has allowed regulatory evasion on a scale unmatched by any other environmental harm. Integrating carbon into domestic legal frameworks—whether through emission limits, reporting requirements, or impact assessments—could make climate action enforceable within countries, not just between them. The shift need not be punitive. Like SO2 limits, CO2 standards can drive compliance, with GCF grants aiding Non-Annex 1 nations' legal frameworks, as seen in biodiversity strategies. Countries like Denmark have already pioneered such approaches. Real funds for technology transfer By 2027, establish a substantial fund, financed by multilateral institutions, governed by recipient nations for technology co-creation. Technology transfer has been promised for decades. But in practice, it has either been symbolic or commercially transactional. What is needed is a dedicated, transparent, and independent fund—not just for access to equipment, but for actual absorption, adaptation, and co-creation of climate technologies in developing countries. This cannot be left to voluntary partnerships. It must be institutionalized with governance that reflects the needs of those who receive, not just those who fund. Internalize health and lifecycle costs in project finance By 2028, use multilateral finance to fund a 10% interest rate discount for health-cost ratings. Polluting technologies often appear cheaper because their true costs are delayed and dispersed—borne in future illnesses, degraded air, and depleted ecosystems. A new rating system that estimates the long-term health and environmental costs over a ten-year horizon can radically alter investment behaviour. Even a minor linkage between these ratings and interest rates on climate lending—public or private—could tilt the economic logic in favour of sustainability. This approach does not eliminate profit motives; it realigns them with public welfare. The Future When the cost of pollution is invisible, the dirtiest technologies win. When laws cannot regulate carbon, ambition becomes fiction. When technology is monopolized, transitions slow. So where does the world move from here? It may move forward with humility, not celebrations. With policy grounded in reality, not rhetoric. It should recognize that climate negotiations may not always succeed, but also accept that abandoning them is not an option. The global process may not have fixed the climate so far, but now has the experience to do better, by enabling financial rebalancing, and creating entry points for new ideas. Failures have taught us that credible systems must be built on trust and transparency, while factoring in short-termism and realism. The outcomes can still be possibly positive, keeping the possibility of fairness and survival alive. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
South China Morning Post
29-03-2025
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
Asia can't afford to wait for the US to wake up to its climate duty
Published: 9:30am, 29 Mar 2025 President Donald Trump's second term has been a wrecking ball for US climate policy – ripping the country out of the Paris Agreement , gutting climate science funding and abandoning global clean energy commitments. Fossil fuels are back at the centre of power, while international climate efforts scramble to fill the void left by a retreating America . Scientists flee to Europe, funding dries up for energy transitions and the United States, once a key player in climate diplomacy, now cedes leadership to China . The damage is swift, deliberate and devastating – just as the planet's window for climate action narrows . For decades, the US has talked a big game on climate – pledging action, signing agreements, making promises. But when the moment came to lead, it always blinked. It dodged the Kyoto Protocol , watered down the Paris Agreement and kept the fossil fuel spigot wide open. Now, with Trump's second term, the pretence is gone. America had chance after chance to lead. Instead, it has chosen, time and again, to be the deadweight dragging the world down. Nowhere is this failure more blatant than in the US decision to walk away from the loss and damage fund , an agreement aimed at providing assistance to developing countries. For climate-vulnerable nations in Asia where the climate crisis isn't a distant threat but a daily reality, this isn't just another broken promise – it's a punch to the gut. Asia accounts for over 60 per cent of the world's population and is home to some of its most vulnerable communities. From Bangladesh's sinking deltas to Vietnam's vanishing coastlines, from Pakistan's catastrophic floods to the Philippines' supercharged typhoons , communities everywhere are bearing the brunt of climate-induced disasters they did little to cause. Established at the Cop28 UN climate conference , the loss and damage fund wasn't just meant to provide a modicum of relief for these communities. It was a hard-won victory, a recognition that more than just thoughts and prayers, frontline nations deserve actual resources to recover from the devastation that fossil-fuelled economies have inflicted upon them. 07:25 Cop28 prepares temperature check on climate at Dubai meeting Cop28 prepares temperature check on climate at Dubai meeting
Associated Press
05-03-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
Schneider Electric Secures Major Order from Tata Power for SF6-Free Green Switchgear
Tata Power and Schneider Electric will launch these RMUs in the Mumbai and Delhi areas, offering a new generation of medium-voltage/low-voltage (MV/LV) substation equipment as an alternative to traditional SF6 (sulphur hexafluoride) gas. Although SF6 is a highly effective insulating gas in electrical equipment, it has a very high Global Warming Potential (GWP) and is targeted by the Kyoto Protocol for its environmental impact. The project is expected to reduce Tata Power's carbon footprint by up to 75% compared to conventional SF6 RMUs. Additionally, Tata Power will benefit from up to 50% in cost savings over the lifespan of these new RMUs. Deepak Sharma, Zone President – Greater India & MD & CEO of Schneider Electric, commented, 'Partnering with Tata Power on this transformative project marks a major milestone for us. The RM AirSeT units enhance both the reliability and safety of power distribution, while also underscoring our commitment to sustainability and innovation. This project is a crucial step towards supporting India's net-zero targets for 2070 and highlights our ongoing dedication to delivering eco-friendly solutions that meet our customers' evolving needs.' Sanjay Banga, President of Transmission and Distribution at Tata Power, emphasized the company's commitment to sustainability, stating, 'At Tata Power, we are focused on building a robust, sustainable energy ecosystem. Our partnership with Schneider Electric, with the introduction of SF6-Free RMUs in Mumbai and Delhi, and eventually in Odisha Discoms, is a perfect reflection of our vision. This initiative will significantly cut carbon emissions and improve the efficiency and reliability of power distribution.' Dr. Nilesh Kane, Chief Distribution (Mumbai) at Tata Power, added, 'We are proud to lead the way in adopting SF6-free technology in Mumbai. The RM AirSeT units will play a key role in our efforts to minimize environmental impact while ensuring efficient, reliable power distribution. This partnership with Schneider Electric reflects our shared commitment to a greener future.' The RM AirSeT units replace traditional SF6 gas with pressurized air, making them more environmentally friendly while maintaining high performance and durability. These robust systems are designed for increased endurance, extending the lifespan of the equipment. This collaboration between Schneider Electric and Tata Power sets a new standard for sustainable power distribution in India, leading the charge towards a cleaner and more efficient energy future. Schneider Electric is a global leader in energy management and automation, committed to driving digital transformation for a more efficient and sustainable future. With a strong presence in over 100 countries, the company provides integrated solutions for homes, buildings, data centers, industries, and infrastructure. Schneider Electric focuses on innovation in electrical distribution, industrial automation, and smart grid technology, helping businesses optimize energy consumption and reduce carbon footprints. Through its EcoStruxure platform, the company leverages IoT, AI, and advanced analytics to enhance operational efficiency and sustainability. Dedicated to accelerating the transition to clean energy, Schneider Electric continues to pioneer cutting-edge solutions that empower organizations to achieve greater energy resilience and sustainability.
