In Bangalore, the current temperature (April) is 3°C to 4°C above normal, resulting in significant heat stress throughout the city. Bengaluru often gets “Mango Showers” in April, which provide temporary cooling. However, when the mercury exceeds 35°C, Bengalureans start lamenting climate change and blame the reduction of green cover as the main cause.

Bengaluru is not an isolated case. Interestingly, Delhiites say that the temperature is as usual hot and are prepared to face the usual extreme summer phase with forecasts reaching as high as 45°C by the end of the month. Some people have discussed the El Niño effect, which refers to the natural warming of the Pacific Ocean that occurs every few years and alters global weather patterns. So, can we attribute the current weather conditions to El Niño? In India, this phenomenon often leads to hotter summers and, at times, weaker monsoons. Thus, we can say that El Niño contributes to a temporary spike in temperatures that are already on the rise. However, this does not negate the impact of climate change. To put it simply, while climate change is a gradual and ongoing challenge, El Niño acts as an accelerant. Ultimately, the rising mercury levels are influenced by multiple factors, both natural and man-made, and these conditions are significantly affecting the livelihoods of everyday people. The question is whether we can reduce global warming, which is a big-picture concern and what little can be done at the local level. The octogenarian Bengalurean who saw the beautiful garden city once upon a time just laments and concludes, ‘We are already one step out, nothing could be done, it is the fate!’. A bureaucrat is half-minded. He has already subscribed to the ‘impossible’ intonation. As usual, politicians are relying on vote bank politics. The youth are preoccupied with their pursuit of a “bright” future and have little time for anything else. Meanwhile, the business world is focused on accumulating profits and prefers quick, shortcut methods to achieve its goals. The question of whether we can “pin hope” on the next generation is profound, as they inherit immense challenges while wielding unique strengths. Gen Z and Millennials exhibit remarkable resilience in facing global crises like COVID-19, passionately tackling systemic issues such as racial healing and environmental sustainability. Growing up in a digital world, they harness technology to solve complex problems, embodying kindness and ethics that inspire inclusive leadership. This generation is a force of transformation in fashion, culture, and politics, advocating for a brighter future. Our apprehension is how many will care for environment?\

Rules may come, and rules may go! But garbage goes on overflowing!

Yes, we were eagerly waiting for 1^st April 2026, the day on which the New Waste Management Rules were to be enforced. (We never forget that April 1^st is Fools’ Day). Drastic changes have been proposed under the new rules. Recently, when I posted about the proposed changes in the WhatsApp group of a climate action group, someone said that there is no such proposal. Had I made a blunder? For a while, I was a bit upset because I felt guilty of misleading the public on social media. Instantly, I searched for the gazette notification of new rules for Solid waste management and posted it in the group. I do not have any resentment against the person who was unaware of the new rules. It only shows how the common man is sensitised to the proposed changes.  Yes, the 2016 Solid Waste Management rules have now been replaced by the 2026 rules, which took effect on April 1^st, 2026.

The responsibility for achieving zero waste generation has largely been placed on individuals, who are the primary producers of waste. This aligns with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, which is understandable. However, what about the authorities? Our cities and even villages have experienced the worrying issue of unauthorized dumping. What repercussions can we expect if this trash is not removed promptly? Will the local authorities be made accountable for non-performance? If local authorities do not perform, will Pollution control boards take action against them? And if PCBs do not perform, will CPCB be made accountable? Who will take action? NGTs and Courts? When Courts have already been dumped with unmanageable cases, where is there time for them to take suo moto action? The role of civil society is crucial in this context. On one hand, there are individuals and institutions that find themselves held accountable for the shortcomings and failures of others, even when those shortcomings are beyond their control. On the other hand, it becomes imperative for these same groups to advocate vigorously against the lack of performance and inefficiencies exhibited by local governing bodies. Their involvement is essential in bringing attention to these issues, pressing for accountability, and ensuring that the community’s needs are met effectively.

What are the key takeaways of SWM rules 2026? If your campus area is ≥ 20,000 sq.m or waste generated is ≥ 100 kg/day or water consumption is ≥ 40,000 L/day, then you are a Bulk Waste Generator (BWG) as per SWM rules 2026. Then you MUST ensure segregation at source, process wet waste onsite (compost/biogas) and maintain records. If you fail to do that, you will end up with fines and environmental compensation for dumping, under the Polluter Pays Principle.

Quick answer: Yes, but not perfectly. What is the real answer? For that, please read this editorial fully.

International Day for Zero Waste! On 30^th March, the world observes Zero Waste Day.  That’s fine. There are hundreds of international and national days. In fact, very few days, such as Environment Day or Earth Day, draw the public’s attention. Zero Waste Day has not gained much significance. But zero waste itself is the most talked-about topic nowadays. I wonder whether zero waste is ever achievable. The idea of Zero Waste is to design and manage products and habits so nothing ends up in landfills or incinerators. In practice, it means:

• Reducing what you consume
• Reusing as much as possible
• Recycling/composting the rest

But can you reduce consumption to zero? Can you reuse the produced goods forever? One day or another, you may have to discard the same. Can you recycle the rest? For instance, let us take plastic material. One can reduce plastic goods. A cloth bag may be substituted for a polythene bag. Even if you buy some plastic bottles, you can reuse them for a few years. After that, a day will come when you have to discard the same. Then what are you going to do? Are you going to dump it in a landfill where it will take 500 years to degrade? It is nearly impossible to completely avoid generating waste. Therefore, it must be managed effectively so that it does not become a burden on society. Wet waste can be composted, while dry waste can be recycled. Some data suggests that we can reduce waste by up to 90%, and the goal of a circular economy is to achieve this reduction. In some highly disciplined communities, reductions of over 97% are possible according to certain studies.

In brief, I can say that zero waste is a direction, not a destination.

Perhaps the title seems unusual. In a materialistic world, it is a fact that nature and the environment may not concern everyone. This is what I have felt after participating in conservation activities for years. Recently, I saw a viral video from the USA. The speaker was highly critical of environmental activism, or, for that matter, he was also satirical about climate change. He is of the view that climate change is a hoax and environmentalists try to fool all by painting a gloomy picture that the climate is changing. Donald Trump dismisses climate change as a “con job” or “hoax”. He mocked Greta Thunberg in 2019, telling her to “chill” and work on her “Anger Management problem” Vivek Ramaswamy, during the 2023 Republican presidential debate, labelled the climate change agenda a “hoax” and claimed that “more people are dying of climate change policies than they actually are of climate change”. Andrew Tate taunted activist Greta Thunberg on social media, listing his 33 cars and offering to send details of their “enormous emissions”. Vladimir Putin described Greta Thunberg as a “kind, but poorly informed, teenager”. We are not going to debate who is correct, Greta or Trump. Because we are unequivocally sure of the impact of environmental degradation that is even visible to a layman. Our worry is about the apathy demonstrated by affluent nations in the global arena.

As of January 2026, the United States has officially withdrawn from the Paris Agreement on climate change for the second time. President Trump signed an executive order to withdraw on his first day in office, January 20, 2025, reversing the 2021 re-entry by the Biden administration. The U.S. is currently not a party to the treaty, as it is more concerned with domestic energy production. Yes, it is a global secret that Trump’s agenda was “America First” when he became President for the second time. His acts make one doubt whether America is his first choice or something else. The war in Iran has posed significant threats to the environment, as reports of acid rain have emerged from across the country. On one hand, Trump’s bombing actions are damaging the environment, while on the other, he claims to speak for world peace. His frequent statements have exceeded acceptable limits and are having a substantial impact globally. Additionally, the current shortage of LPG in India can be traced back to the consequences of the war. If climate change is a hoax, why do we discuss it almost every day? Why are sustainable development goals highlighted at every convention? Every individual who has lived for 60 – 80 years can remember how much better the climate was in the 20th century. Why are glaciers melting? Why are floods becoming more frequent? Why are barren lands increasing daily? Why are water bodies disappearing around the world? World leaders need to act with good sense on this matter.

There are differences between SHORTAGE, CRISIS and BANKRUPTCY. 

While world leaders have been discussing water scarcity and the impending water crisis, many of us have overlooked these statements and reports, considering them routine topics. Seminars and conferences frequently addressed the issue of water crisis, but there was a lack of seriousness about the potential dangers highlighted by scholars and scientists. The fact is, we do not have enough water in the world. The United Nations’ statement on “global water bankruptcy” is a strong new warning from UN researchers about the state of the world’s freshwater resources. The United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH) — a UN research body — has concluded that the world has moved beyond a temporary “water crisis” into a state of long-term global water bankruptcy.  Water Bankruptcy is a new term coined by the UN and carries a deeper significance. We have moved from a period of shortage into an era of bankruptcy. The chances of recovery appear bleak. In financial, commercial, and economic terms, “bankruptcy” often suggests a potential path to salvation through mergers and acquisitions of big corporates. However, in the context of our freshwater resources, that possibility doesn’t seem to exist. Can we say that the world has entered an era of “NO RETURN”? In simpler terms, humanity has inflicted irreversible damage on our freshwater resources. Humans are consuming and polluting potable water from rivers, lakes, and wetlands. The aquifers are vanishing at an alarming rate. Now, neither rainfall nor snowmelt can replenish these water sources fast enough. The anticipated benefits of monsoons and melting glaciers are no longer sufficient to restore the water that has been consumed. With a rapidly growing population and a looming water crisis, humanity is facing dire consequences for its actions. We put forth a 5-point agenda that may be considered by man.

1. Protect drinking water first — prioritise human consumption over commercial and luxury use.
2. Reduce groundwater over-extraction immediately through strict regulation and community water budgeting.
3. Promote drip irrigation and low-water crops to cut agricultural water use drastically.
4. Make rainwater harvesting compulsory in all urban and rural buildings.
5. Restore lakes, wetlands, and local water bodies to revive natural recharge systems

But if we go by UN reports based on facts and figures, the above may not make any drastic change in the waterfront, but human life depends on hope. Our existence depends on water. How we can come out of the water bankruptcy squarely rests on the world leaders’ decision

Can you see the microplastics? Where is it? For those who are not familiar with microplastics, they are extremely small plastic particles that range in size from 1 micrometre (µm) to 5 millimetres. To clarify, 1 micrometre (commonly referred to as a micron) is equal to 1/1000 of a millimetre. Because they are so small, we cannot see them, but we eat and drink them unknowingly. In particular, many researchers have been warning people to avoid drinking water from PET bottles. They claimed that the chemical reactions between plastic packets and bottles can induce cancer and other terminal diseases. However, it has been challenging to discourage people from using these bottles. Recently, a court made a landmark decision that may provide some respite in this matter.

The Madras High Court has raised serious concerns over the presence of microplastics in plastic-packaged food and drinking water, calling on the Government of India to introduce mandatory warning labels to inform consumers about potential health risks. The Madras High Court has raised serious concerns over the presence of microplastics in plastic-packaged food and drinking water, calling on the Government of India to introduce mandatory warning labels to inform consumers about potential health risks. Hearing writ petitions on plastic contamination, the Court observed that consumers have a right to know about exposure to microplastics—minute plastic particles that enter the human body through food and water. The judges likened the proposed warnings to health labels on liquor bottles, stating that such disclosures enable informed consumer choice. The Court highlighted emerging scientific evidence indicating that microplastics could pose health risks, particularly to pregnant women, children, and future generations, and also flagged the environmental consequences of plastic pollution entering the food chain. During the hearing, the Court was informed that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), under the Union Health Ministry, is conducting studies to identify and quantify micro- and nano-plastics in food and beverages. The research involves institutions including CSIR-Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, ICAR-Central Institute of Fisheries Technology, and BITS Pilani. Government submissions revealed preliminary findings indicating the presence of microplastics in commonly consumed items such as salt and packaged drinking water in several states. Pending final scientific conclusions, the Court stated that warning labels would serve as an interim consumer protection measure. Warning labels have no meaning in our humble opinion. We should not forget that the mandatory warning against smoking has not stopped the smokers. The stringent measures against public smoking alone had some impact. Soon, we will see one more slogan.  SAY ‘NO’ TO MICROPLASTICS!

After a decade of solid waste management rules 2016, the present SWM Rules, 2026 is expected to strengthen solid waste management across urban and rural India, aligning with the circular economy and polluter-pays principles. Undoubtedly, there is a shift in waste management. From disposal orientation, we are moving towards resource orientation. The new rules are targeting mandatory 4 Stream Segregation at Source. This means that the waste generators must now segregate waste into four distinct categories: Wet waste, Dry waste, Sanitary waste and Special care waste. While the common man is somewhat familiar with dry, wet and Sanitary Waste, he may not be clear about Special Care Waste. They are bulbs, paints, expired medicines, batteries, etc. Segregation at source is now mandatory for all households, institutions, and establishments. Were the 2016 rules not mandatory?  Anyway, there is no point in doing a post mortem. Bulk Waste Generator (BWG), a new term coined in the 2026 act, includes a new class of entities called buildings with 20,000 m² area, Entities consuming 40,000 litres of water/day and places generating 100 kg of solid waste/day. All BWGs must ensure segregation, collection, transport and environmentally sound processing of waste (e.g., onsite composting). If onsite processing isn’t feasible, obtain an Extended Bulk Waste Generator Responsibility (EBWGR) certificate. If enforced, 30 % of waste will be processed at source, reducing the burden on local bodies. According to the new rules, digital monitoring will ensure compliance. Improper segregation and false reporting will be penalised as per the ‘Polluter Pays’ principles.

Landfills will be used for the recycling of non-recyclables only, and not for dumping. The circular economy is given weightage in the new rules by strengthening Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) and promoting the reuse of waste as Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) in boilers/cement kilns. The idea is to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. Visitor waste management fees will be implemented in hill areas to regulate tourist numbers according to waste capacity.  The SWM Rules 2026 significantly enhance waste segregation, introduce digital oversight, increase accountability for major waste generators, limit landfill use, remediate legacy sites, and promote circular waste management in India—all from April 1, 2026. While the 2016 rules did not bring about any significant changes, will the 2026 rules set a new standard? All eyes are set on enforcement!  We all live with hopes only!

Elephants are always the soft victims! In December 2025, a high-speed New Delhi Rajdhani Express collided with a herd of elephants in the Jamunamukh–Kampur section under the Lumding division in Assam. The incident resulted in the deaths of seven elephants, including calves, and injured one more. Five coaches of the train were derailed due to the crash. Unfortunately, such incidents are common in India. At night, visibility may be a challenge for the drivers. But it is not clear how massive animals, even when they come in huge numbers, go unnoticed. We have quite often heard that elephants come out of the forests in search of food and damage agricultural lands and villages adjacent to the forest area. Often, social media posts show elephants stealing sugarcane from trucks in highway. At least, this is understandable.

When it comes to the killing of elephants within their natural habitat, no excuse is acceptable. It is unreasonable to lose valuable wildlife because of drivers’ negligence. While drivers may argue that it’s difficult to stop high-speed trains when they spot wild animals at a distance, the real question is why these trains are allowed to run at such high speeds in the first place. When such accidents happen, no one raises their voice for the voiceless. Or we may say that the animals could not ventilate their anger in any way. Occasionally, the naturalists come across mild forms of protest through comics and stories, like what we are doing right now.   To reduce elephant-train collisions, we need to explore measures such as Technology-based early warning systems (e.g., camera or sensor networks) to alert trains about elephant presence. In fact, these suggestions have been advocated for a long time. But they have not taken any tangible shape so far. Underpasses, skyways and modified track designs in high-risk zones may help. On highways, we see signage in known elephant-crossing zones. The same can be of use in jungle areas. Environmentalists say that linear infrastructure projects should avoid passing directly through wildlife sanctuaries, suggesting longer, alternative routes to protect the park’s biodiversity. We are left with minimal national parks and limited wildlife. Is it not necessary to protect the valuable natural assets?

In today’s world, the terminology surrounding eco-friendly living is often both confusing and misleading, undermining the true essence of environmental responsibility. Could burning fuel be green? Could we burst crackers and call them green? Or do we really use biodegradable plastic? Green fuel refers to fuels that are considered eco-friendly because they emit lower greenhouse gas emissions and less pollution compared to conventional fossil fuels, namely coal, petrol, or diesel. However, the term is often used loosely, and sometimes misleadingly, in the public domain. CNG was considered an early green fuel. Non-conventional energy forms such as solar, wind, tidal energies are also considered eco-friendly and therefore ‘green’. And some advocate biofuel.When a fuel burns and emits carbon, how can it be green? Similarly, green crackers are just an ‘accommodating invention’ to appease the dogmatic beliefs. Green crackers are a category of firecrackers developed in India (mainly by CSIR-NEERI) to reduce air and noise pollution compared to conventional crackers. They were promoted especially after the Supreme Court restrictions on firecrackers. They are not ‘zero-pollution’ crackers but less polluting. The bitter truth is that the green crackers still emit particulate matter, sulphur compounds, nitrogen oxides, and CO₂. We can use the degrees of comparison for the ‘greenness’ of anything – green, greener and greenest. For instance, green crackers are greener than conventional crackers, but they are not the greenest. In that way, we can conclude that there is no greenest cracker. PM 2.5 peaks out during festivals, especially Diwali. We have reduced the bursting time to 2 hours, but not the volume of bursting.

Biodegradable plastic is not a solution to plastic pollution. Many products labelled as “biodegradable” do not actually break down in natural environments. For instance, Oxo-degradable plastics are not biodegradable but conventional plastics with metal salt additives. Microbes do not eat them, but they actually break down into smaller microplastics and nanoplastics. Plastics made from organic matter may degrade under industrial composting. Some plastics biodegrade but are costly. Some are partially biodegradable, as the plastic part remains as microplastics. One thing is clear, the world is yet to eliminate PLASTICS but tries to patch up, using biodegradability to its advantage.

In any case, GREENWASHING continues for sure!