Directions (1Q - 2Q):
Read the following paragraph and answer the below mentioned questions.
India’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution has been widely hailed as a significant next step for not only meeting the country’s domestic development goals but its international commitments to combating climate crises as well. Submitted to the UN for the period 2021 to 2030, it promises to reduce the emissions intensity of its GDP by 33 to 35 percent by 2030, from its 2005 level. This is half of what China has declared (60-65 percent) and a few notches higher than the target set by the US (26-28 percent).
Why has India, which is low in terms of its cumulative global emissions and per capita emission in comparison to both China and the US, set such high targets? Is it an exercise in global climate diplomacy or an astute move to garner global funds for technology transfer and capacity-building support to achieve the targets? For it to deliver on the promised commitments, the country would need no less than $2.5 trillion over the next decade or so.
At 2.44 tonnes per capita, India may be at the bottom of the current list of leading emitters, but the promised emission targets will bequeath it with per capita emission of 8.98 tonnes in 2030, far below the projected per capita emissions of 12 tonnes by China and the US, but some three times more than the present. No wonder these targets by the top polluters — including India — aren’t significant enough to deal with the climate crisis, as they are more than what is required in order to limit global temperature rise by 2°C.
In reality, there has been a need to cut emissions to the tune of 70 percent below the 2010 levels by 2050, if the world is to be on the path to restrict the increase in temperature. However, the emissions sum-game played by the leading emitters has polarised the global climate negotiations. By entering into an agreement whereby China would match its emissions with that of the US in 2030, carbon space has been conveniently appropriated. This leaves a lot to speculate about the role of corporations in the deal.
No wonder, to satisfy their energy demands in the face of lopsided economic growth, the developing countries have promised emission targets that seem carbon-friendly on paper but not on the ground. India’s intention to achieve 40 percent cumulative electric power installed capacity from renewable sources alongside creating an additional carbon dioxide sink of 2.5-3 billion tonnes through additional tree cover by 2030, can be read in that light. It will only fuel per capita emission some three times by 2030.
With India considering both hydro and nuclear power to be environmentally benign, good intentions may get lost in smoke. Since coal continues to find favor as the dominant source of energy followed by hydro and nuclear power, the proposed green energy alternatives will hardly get the desired push.
Thermal power contribution to India’s installed capacity is unlikely to change from the present 60 percent; energy contribution from hydropower is projected to double and nuclear power some six times from the presently installed capacities. This can only trigger three times more per capita emissions.
Globally, coal-based power provides 40 per cent electricity, and China emits one-third of the global carbon dioxide on account of its coal consumption. India is the second largest coal consumer after China, which is responsible for 1.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per person per year. The question is whether clean coal technologies will deliver on the promise to cut down on carbon dioxide emissions. Even if it does, the destruction of forests and habitats will release carbon dioxide.
With INDC focused predominantly on emissions reduction, social and environmental issues get pushed to the periphery. That thermal, hydro and nuclear projects cause environmental destruction, deforestation and large-scale displacement doesn’t get counted in the emissions scenario. The premise of ‘coal-cess’ and ‘compensatory afforestation’ offer a trade-off: first sacrifice environmental concerns for development projects, and then invest funds thus generated in creating carbon sinks.
Q1. According to the author, what will hardly get the desired push?
A. Carbon dioxide emissions
B. Green energy alternatives
C. Emission targets of countries
D. Environmental concerns for development projects
E. None of these
Green energy alternatives
Q2. What is the central theme of the passage?
A. Climate changes and its effects
B. Causes of Global worming
C. Climate crisis
D. Climate changes
E. None of these
Directions (3Q - 4Q):
In each of the following sentences , there are two blank spaces. Below each sentence there are four words denoted by A, B, C, D . Find out one word that is to be fitted in both the sentences I AND II to make it meaningful.
Q3. I. He will _____ his allegiance to the king.
II. But there are passions of which a man cannot rid himself, seeing that they are born with him at his birth, and he has no power to ________ them.
E. None of the above
Abjure- renounce upon oath; abandon forever
Q4. I. Diane tried to ______ her father into letting her drive the family car.
II. He stooped to the evil of hypocrisy with others, sceptical of their innocence which he could ______ so easily.
E. None of the above
Cajole- influence or urge by gentle urging or flattering
Choose the word which is most nearly the SAME in meaning as the word printed in bold.