Meeting of Parties on Montreal Protocol begins in Dubai

The twenty-seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone  Layer (MOP 25), began in Dubai on Sunday.

The first day of the conference started with statements by a representative of the Government of the United Arab Emirates and the United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP), followed by the co-chair congratulating the parties for the progress made in the 36th Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) held last week. Followed by that, the agenda for the next five days was discussed in detail and a few countries raised objections and made suggestions for additional items, to the co-chair.

“We are here not to tell a story but to write history,” said Micronesian delegate, stressing on the urgency needed to come to an understanding in phasing out Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS).

The session also included discussion on critical-use exemptions by Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC). Methyl Bromide or Bromomethane is readily photolysed in the atmosphere to release elemental bromine, which is far more destructive to stratospheric ozone than chlorine. Until its production and use was curtailed by the Montreal Protocol, it was widely applied as a soil sterilant, mainly for production of seed but also for some crops such as strawberries and almonds. Representative from Jordon, a country that has phased out Methyl Bromide, urged all other Parties to phase out as early as possible. South African representative said that they were having difficulty in using alternatives and so have applied for critical use and requested MBTOC to look into the permission as all the recommendations made were being implemented and to avoid negative impact and for food security.

A presentation was made by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP), on the report that was published in June with updated results for projections, and costs were discussed in detail. There were comments from representatives of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia on how the graphs in the report did not give the complete picture and had questions on temperature usage in the graph.  TEAP then explained how the model and graph was just an example and a starting point. It also suggested that not all the parameters like temperature zones, technology changes, costs for elimination of ODSs and stocking and collection of substances were considered.  Canada, the US and the EU have said that the quality of the report has been increasing every year and that they were willing to work with TEAP to improve the accuracy of the predictions in the report. Saudi Arabia also highlighted how safety and energy efficiency that were the mandates of TEAP need to be given equal weightage and suggested that economical and social costs also need to be accounted for in cost estimates.

The co-chair further mentioned that there have been four proposals made by various countries including India which will be discussed in detail once the contact groups will be finalised. But it was also requested that the presentations be made for all the Parties. The proposals presented were:

• Joint proposal by US, Canada and Mexico (the North American proposal)
• Joint proposal by Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia(Federated States of), Palau, Philippines, Samoa and Solomon Islands (the Micronesian or Island States Proposal)
• Proposal submitted by India (Indian proposal)
• The European Union proposal (the European proposal)

Paraguay and some parties complained that they were having delay in disbursement of funds from implementation agency to the countries and that it could lead into a potential issue in future as the delay could lead to non compliance. The issue was noted by the chair and was suggested to be added in the report and the issue be raised with the executive committee in a separate meeting.

Lastly, Samoa, Grenada and Cameroon have also stressed on the importance of ODS disposal and the need for MLF to fund the countries not capable of disposal.

The contact group met for the first time with only one co-chair late evening. Discussions to have a co facilitator were happening late in the night and will mostly have one soon. The discussions in the contact group was very preliminary and on how the contact group might approach the work. It is expected that the discussions will be more productive in the next few days.

Originally Published in http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/meeting-of-parties-on-montreal-protocol-begins-in-doha-51677 on Tuesday 03 November  2015  

South Korea’s leadership did not translate into an ambitious climate plan

No plan B on climate change because there is no planet B: Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations

Support what works... change what needs improvement: Hoesung Lee, Chairman of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Climate scientists have provided us with a firm diagnosis and recommendations for the necessary ‘treatment'… it is up to all who have even the slightest influence to encourage everyone, and particularly those with power, to practise preventive medicine for all life on this planet: World Bank President Jim Yong Kim

One thing that is common among the three above speakers, Hoesung Lee, Ban Ki-Moon and Jim Yong Kim, is that all of them have their roots from South Korea. It is also to be noted that all the three men stress on the importance of fighting climate change, how countries should reduce their emissions and the importance of staying under 2°C.  And it is not just these three international leaders but even the local leaders from South Korea who have been very proactive in talking about climate change. Also, Green Climate Fund, an institution that is supposed to help in in providing climate finance to the vulnerable countries, has its headquarters in South Korea.

Doesn’t all this mean that South Korea, a country with great leaders and great institutions should also adopt an ambitious climate action plan? Unfortunately, it is not so.

When South Korea had submitted its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) to the UNFCCC earlier this year, it put forward a target to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 37 per cent below the business-as-usual (BaU) emissions of 850.6 million metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) by 2030. This means that the country aims to double its 1990 emissions of 246 MtCO2e, without any intention of reducing its industry emissions or lifestyle emissions.

With a very high human development index of 0.891, South Korea is one of the few in the Non-Annex 1 countries of UNFCCC that qualify as developed countries. South Koreas per capita emissions that have drastically increased from 5.76 MT in 1990 to 11.49 MT in 2010 are almost twice that of China or about ten times that of India.

Therefore, with such a powerful leadership and momentum that prevails in the country, it would have been great if South Korea was able to produce a climate action plan that would not just focus on industry but also on vulnerable islands nearby. The climate plan, though talks about how the acceptance of nuclear energy has reduced in the country after the Fukushima accident, it doesn’t talk about the country’s affordability to promote a little expensive renewable technology if it is serious about climate change.

To sum it up, in spite of having a great international leadership from its soil, South Korea, just like the United States, has failed to come up with a climate action plan that looks beyond its boundaries and helps remain under the 2°C in temperature.

After all, all power and responsibility doesn’t lie in just delivering a few impressive quotes.

Originally Published in Down o Earth on Tuesday 20 October  2015

Understanding India’s Climate Action Plan (INDC)

According to the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to meet the 2°C temperature increase target, the world has an emission budget of only 1,000 billion tonnes of CO2 till 2100. With Kyoto Protocol coming to an end by 2020, UNFCCC has urged countries to come up with ‘Intended Nationally Determined Contributions’(INDC) by COP21 so as to negotiate and come up with a legally binding document to cut down emissions.

India has submitted its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) at midnight on 1st October to The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)., making it one of the last countries to submit its climate action plan in run up to the climate change conference – Conference of Parties (COP21)—that will be held in Paris this December. A total of 146 countries, representing 87 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions have submitted their INDCs to UNFCCC before the deadline.

Minister of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Mr.Prakash Javadekar said “even though India is not part of problem, it wants to be part of solution”. India has historically not been responsible for the emissions, has per capita emissions of 1.6 tons/person and ranks 135th – standing along with most of the least developed countries. But with total CO2 emissions of 1.97 billion tons, it is currently the 3rd biggest emitter making India’s stand a very complex case.

Why Emission Intensity?

It has been historically observed that Green House Gas (GHG) emissions and development of a country increase proportionally. India has a Human development Index of 0.586 and it needs to develop for better quality of living, but at the same time not emit as much as the developed countries since India is highly vulnerable to climate change. So India in its INDC has not made a commitment on reducing its emissions like most of the developed countries have, but has pledged to reduce its Carbon intensity, which means that the emissions would increase for its development but the intensity will be low. In simple terms India will be very efficient unlike the developed countries which have their development models designed on consumption.

India had in the past declared a voluntary goal of reducing the emissions intensity of its GDP by 20–25%, over 2005 levels, by 2020, despite having no binding mitigation obligations. A slew of policy measures were launched to achieve this goal. As a result, the emission intensity of India’s GDP has decreased by 12% between 2005 and 2010. India has further pledged in its INDC that it will increase its target to reduce the emissions intensity of its GDP by 33 to 35 percent by 2030 from 2005 level.

Ambitious Renewable Energy and Enhancing Forestry cover commitment

India has also committed to increase its share in renewable energy to 40% in installed capacity by 2030. Its current share of renewable energy is around 13% (36 GW) making it a very ambitious goal. India says that the ambitious goal will be attained by the following

• Solar and Wind energy will increase from current 4060 MW and 23.76 GW in 2015 to 100 GW and 60 GW by 2022 respectively and an increase even after that.
• It is envisaged to increase biomass installed capacity to 10 GW by 2022 from current capacity of 4.4 GW.
• Special programmes to promote small and mini hydel projects, new and efficient designs of water mills have been introduced for electrification of remote villages and will continue to be promoted.
• Nuclear energy will be promoted from the current capacity of 5780 MW to 63 GW installed capacity by the year 2032, if supply of fuel is ensured.
• Clean coal will be promoted by increasing the efficiency standards and old inefficient thermal stations will be assigned mandatory targets for improving energy efficiency

India has also agreed to enhance its forest cover from 24% of the geographical area in 2013 to 33% of its geographical area in long term. And it also mentions that its forest cover will absorb 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2030 making it a major sink for absorbing Carbon Dioxide

Finances

Overcoming all these challenges comes at a cost. Based on estimates made by NITI Ayog (National Institution for Transforming India), India will need USD 2.5 trillion (at 2014-15 prices) for meeting India’s climate change actions between now and 2030, which will partially be generated domestically and the rest is expected to be supported by the developed countries which have pledged to provide USD 100 billion a year till 2020 as a part of Green Climate fund (GCF). India will need around USD 206 billion (at 2014-15 prices) between 2015 and 2030 for implementing adaptation actions in agriculture, forestry, fisheries infrastructure, water resources and ecosystems. It is projected that the economic damage and losses in India from climate change to be around 1.8% of its GDP annually by 2050. Also, mitigation activities for moderate low carbon development would cost around USD 834 billion till 2030 at 2011 prices.

Some other important statements India has made through the INDC were to increase the usage of Fly ash to improve air quality, Promotion of Zero liquid discharge and use of treated effluent for irrigation, Amendment to Municipal Solid Waste Management rules, improving pollution monitoring systems to name a few. The Indian INDC also talks about various programmes that are currently run by the government like the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, Smart cities mission, Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT) and National Heritage City Development and Augmentation Yojana (HRIDAY), existing national missions and addition of new missions for water and waste to energy, green highways program, National Mission for Clean Ganga etc.

What does all this mean?

India is on the edge of a cliff, with it having to mitigate its emissions, adapt to the problems of climate change it faces and at the same time develop. Because of its delay in development, it is both a victim and the culprit of the problem of climate change. This is the precise reason why it cannot commit to an emission reduction pledge or to an emission peaking year. Expectations from India have anyways been low because of its need for development and India’s INDC has been applauded as fair and its renewable energy program as ambitious by many. Even otherwise, India has always stated that as it is a growing economy and has major developmental challenges to deal with, it expects the countries which have historically emitted Greenhouse gases to come forward and commit more ambitious goals and make a change in their living standards if need be.

Some of the key highlights of the India’s INDC are

• India plans to reduce the emissions intensity of its GDP by 33 to 35 percent by 2030 from 2005 level.
• 40 percent cumulative electric power installed capacity from non-fossil fuel based energy resources by 2030. A jump of 33% over non-fossil fuel capacity of 2015
• To create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent through additional forest and tree cover by 2030.
• USD 2.5 trillion (at 2014-15 prices) required for meeting India’s climate change actions between now and 2030

Originally published in Factly on OCTOBER 6, 2015

Climate talks: INDCs and the role of land use

It is a well-known fact that vegetation and soils can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in different forms of carbon as carbon sinks. And human activities, including land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), impact these sinks that can store carbon dioxide. Historically, deforestation has been a major source of emission for many countries, with large forest reserves. Therefore, the emissions for these countries have been high too.

Scare of forest fires

LULUCF emissions are usually hard to measure as they require estimates of the land area affected as well as the depth of peat soil that has burnt. Forest fires usually occur naturally, but many are initiated deliberately and illegally to clear the land for crops, such as palm oil. Similarly, in dry years, forest fires can run out of control and can cause major spikes in greenhouse gas emissions, making it difficult for countries to maintain their commitments. Although remote sensing has become increasingly powerful in estimation of loss and damage, calculating the emissions based on degradation of forests, density of forest and type of vegetation, cannot be understood without on-the-ground sampling. Land use and land change for agriculture, to an extent, can be considered as a necessity for countries to improve their developmental status. But when used for commercial purposes like, it is looked upon as a luxury.

In this context, emissions proposed to be reduced from LULUCF play a major role in the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) being submitted by countries. Countries like Brazil, Indonesia and some African countries are highly vulnerable to climate change and have been high emitters because of land use patterns as it has been one of their major economic drivers.

Brazil has a plan

A closer look at the Brazilian INDC says that it takes into account the role of conservation units and indigenous lands as forest-managed areas. The footnote explains “conservation units” as federal and state-level protected areas and “indigenous lands” as areas at the minimum in the “delimited” stage in the demarcation processes. In simple terms, indigenous lands, inhabited and exclusively possessed by indigenous people and mostly the forest lands not managed by the government, are also being taken into account. Without the role of these managed areas, Brazil’s contribution in the INDC would represent “a reduction of 31 per cent in 2025 and 37 per cent in 2030 in relation to 2005 levels”. Brazil, however, has stated that it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 37 per cent below 2005 levels in 2025 or an indicative 43 per cent below 2005 levels in 2030. Brazil’s INDC also mentions how it did not consider removals (by planting trees or managing forests) from conservation units and indigenous lands prior to guidelines in its first national communication and explains how it would neither be compatible with current guidelines, nor comparable to other Parties’ contributions. Disregarding these “removals” compromised the comparability of the Brazilian initial inventory with other Parties’ inventories. Brazil’s second communication revised this approach.

Brazil INDC also states that it is anyway willing to further enhance its contribution towards achieving the objective of the convention, in the context of sustainable development. But according to a report in Thomson Reuters Foundation, SEEG, an independent emissions measuring system has calculated that Brazil's greenhouse gases had already fallen 33 per cent from 2005 to 2013 due to successful policies to repress illegal deforestation. So, we also need to question if 37 per cent reduction is ambitious enough and if Brazil can do a lot more and not just rely on its reserves to show emission reduction.

Indonesia’s developing policies

Indonesia, on the other hand, in its INDC has stressed on how the emissions of the country have been high because of the land use change, peat and forest fires. The INDC mentions that around 63 per cent of its emissions are from LULUCF. But as Indonesia has pledged to reduce its emissions by 26 per cent unconditionally and up to 41 per cent conditionally below 2009 levels, it has been working on developing policies and mechanisms to reduce its emissions from LULUCF. And so the country aims to reduce up to 29 per cent unconditionally of business as usual by 2030 and has shown leadership with Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA) proposals and voluntary commitments.

Russia’s not-so-ambitious pledge

It is not surprising that even in Russia’s INDC, a lot of stress is laid on LULUCF as Russia has around 25 per cent of the world’s forest resources. The INDC mentions how forest management is one of the most important elements of the Russian policy to reduce greenhouse emissions up to 25 to 30 per cent with LULUCF. The INDC clearly states that it will include maximum possible account of absorbing capacity of forests. Such accounting of LULUCF emissions would allow Russia’s emissions to increase by 30 to 38 per cent above 2012 levels, according to a report by Climate Action Tracker. So with the fall in Soviet economy from 1990 and addition of LULUCF data, the pledge seems hardly ambitious.

Apart from these issues of how LULUCF is being reported in INDCs, other problems include inconsistency in its historically recorded data, transparency, fluctuations and methods of calculating it. Annex-1 countries (countries classified as industrialised countries and economies in transition) are mandated by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to report any change in their LULUCF data, so a number of non Annex-1 countries tend to have inconsistent inventory. The accounting of LULUCF is a very complex issue that needs to be discussed and agreed upon in detail for the climate deal in Paris to be meaningful without unfair advantage to some countries over others.

Originally published in http://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/climate-talks-indcs-and-the-role-of-land-use-51362 on Thursday 01 October 2015

Climate negotiations moving at a slow pace, but seemingly in the right direction

With less than five days of negotiation left in the race to Paris COP 21, all parties attending the negotiations in Germany complained that discussions at the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) were superficial.

While there has been no significant improvement in finalising of the text, reports on developments have been presented in the discussions informally. With the announcement to issue a new "basis" text for the Paris deal in the first week of October, things seem to be moving in the right direction.

To enable negotiations to move in a planned manner, the session co-chairs introduced a tool in the scenario note in July so that parties could come prepared. This tool consisted of three parts:

• Part one comprises of provisions that are by nature appropriate for inclusion in an agreement.
• Part two contains provisions that are appropriate for inclusion in a decision.
• Part three contains provisions whose placement requires further clarity among parties in relation to the draft agreement or draft decision.

But with little progress being made, groups have proposed different methods to give a push to the process. The African group suggested a clearer mandate for the co-facilitators to act. The Umbrella Group (non-EU developed countries) proposed that work must occur within spin-off groups, while others wanted to directly proceed with text-based negotiations.

A number of spin-off sessions were held on issues of contention like differentiation, adaptation, loss and damage and long-term goals. The objective of the spin-off was to develop common understanding of a specific issue in a small group and then bring it to a bigger group. But it has been seen as a way of slowing down the process with too many spin-off sessions at the same time, making it difficult for countries with smaller delegations to attend. There has also been discomfort among parties because the text has not been discussed yet.

Developed countries have reiterated that the outcome should be based solely on mitigation-centric goals while developing countries continue to stay committed to elements discussed in the Durban decision (mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer, capacity-building and transparency of action and support). Discussion on loss and damage has been the highlight of ADP2 with a number of negotiation groups stressing the need to address them and to move them into the negotiation text.

AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) reminded parties that even if a two-degree limit was agreed upon, it would prove to be an existential crisis for them with sea levels rising rapidly. They called for parties to cut the limit down to 1.5°C. AOSIS also asked developing countries to stand by their commitment of providing US $100 billion every year up to 2020 and scaling up their effort post-2020.

It has been reported that the US and the EU are considering loss and damage options for the Paris deal, which is the only sign of hope for non-annex countries to address adaptation and loss and damage in the final text. There has been an emphasis on trust and fulfilling of pre-2020 targets to gain the trust of all parties.

Originally published in Down to Earth on Tuesday 08 September 2015

What to expect from India’s INDCs

INDCs may focus on all key elements—including mitigation, adaptation, finance, capacity-building, technology development and transfer, transparency of action and support

With the news of India releasing its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) later this week doing the rounds, it is not surprising that there is heightened curiosity around what the country would commit to.

Before the climate change conference—Conference of Parties (COP21)—that will be held in Paris this December, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has urged countries to come up with INDCs. The conference in Paris will take place under UNFCCC, a treaty adopted in 1992.

All the INDCs submitted so far are available online on the UNFCCC website that will be reviewed starting November, after the last Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform (ADP 2-11) in Bonn, Germany.

From the INDCs that have been presented, it is evident that the countries are committing to reduce their emissions based on their vulnerability to climate change. Take the example of an oil rich country like Jordan—which has mentioned an unconditional pledge of reducing 1.5 per cent from business as usual (BAU) whereas a highly vulnerable island country like Comoros with emissions of 0.2 tonnes per capita has a conditional pledge of 84 per cent of their BAU. Similarly Ethiopia, a member of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) has committed to reduce 64 per cent over BAU, with most of its reductions coming by using market mechanisms committing to change its land use patterns and protecting or re-establishing forests.

What India's INDCs might look like

While 65 countries have already pledged their INDCs, India remains in a tricky situation as it is a major emitter while at the same time being highly vulnerable to climate change. It is crucial that India comes forth as a leader that can mitigate its emissions while addressing its developmental goals.

The Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change of India has been very vocal that it will neither give a peaking year like China nor give absolute emission reduction target like many developed countries are doing. It is possible that India may give reductions in carbon intensity as it has always stated that it has historically maintained a low carbon lifestyle and needs more space to fulfill its growing developmental needs. The ministry has continually highlighted that the INDCs will focus on all key elements—including mitigation, adaptation, finance, capacity-building, technology development and transfer, transparency of action and support.

India might not have a strong negotiation position if it has a weak INDC. Hence, it is expected to bring in equity, common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) and loss and damage discussion along with historical responsibility of the developed countries onto the table.

In the upcoming negotiations, it is, therefore, very important for India to be at least as ambitious as other Like Minded Development Countries (LMDCs) in its emission reduction pledges and fight for its carbon space required for its basic developmental needs and advocating for support to vulnerable countries in adapting for climate change.

Sinking islands

For the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) group countries, the ongoing climate change poses a grave danger to their existence. With this in mind, they are throwing a challenge at major emitters whose pledges are not ambitious enough. The AOSIS group countries are committing very ambitiously to show to the world that it is possible to maintain the 2 degrees Celsius rise in temperature, thereby throwing a challenge to the yet-to-pledge nations like India, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, among others.

More about INDCs

Conditional and Unconditional pledges: Unconditional pledges are commitments by parties to reduce their emissions on their own, whereas conditional pledges are commitments that can be met if additional support in terms of finance or technology transfer made available.

Equity: - Equal per capita rights to the atmospheric space

CBDR: In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command. (http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/151320/)

Originally published in Down to Earth on 21st September 2015. http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/what-to-expect-from-india-s-indcs-51181

Where is the Cycle Chacha?

Being a kid from ninety eighties I remember Hyderabad being in par with developed countries. It had an amazing culture of having a bicycle sharing program. Now don’t get me wrong, it was in no par with London or Paris where there are bicycle sharing programs with GPS installed and are rented by swiping credit cards. There used to be an old Cycle Chacha(uncle) who would be repairing bicycles everyday in his greasy old bicycle shop. He had all kinds of cycles from the small 2 feet tall cycles which we used to rent for a rupee an hour and the big bicycles which people would rent it for a whole day. I used to love going there because I used to like playing with steal balls from the broken ball bearings. The system was wholly based on trust and honesty.  Cycle Chacha used to rent the big bicycles only to the people he knew and the small ones to kids of the ilaka(Community). We had to be introduced by someone if we were new to that area. It was part of our holiday curriculum to rent the cycles on weekends or mostly during summer holidays. As a kid with no watch, giving the bicycle on time was always a challenge.

With the communities growing leaps and bounds and the trust between neighbours diminishing every day, the cycle chachas of Hyderabad have slowly started disappearing right when there is a need for bicycle sharing program for this city. With ever increasing vehicular population, Hyderabad is one of the fastest growing cities where there is a big need for a healthy and sustainable mode of transportation. What better than the age old bicycle which has helped people transport and kept them fit all those years. I remember my uncles telling me how they travelled from one end of the city to another on rented cycles. It’s a different story now how it is almost impossible to rid your bicycle through the city traffic with uneven roads in the midst of the pollution. But the need for a transportation system which does not pollute and which makes life comfortable is the need of the hour.

To start a bicycle sharing program in Hyderabad, it needs to be a mix of traditional methods and modern technology to survive. Staring a program like in Europe with fancy gizmos attached to bicycle might not really work with all sections of the society. Why I say we need a mixed approach is mainly because we are moving into an era where we dump machines as and when they stop working. Bike sharing not only cuts down on maintenance but also helps in saving time in travelling smaller distances.

What the city needs is biking friendly policies and their implementation. There are a few places in the cities where biking is being promoted as a form of recreation and exercise but what the city needs is a bigger platform where people feel comfortable to drive around safely to work. We need a system which encourages people to choose healthier choices and solves the problem with traffic. To start with converting Universities and colleges into vehicle free zones helps generate the awareness and motivates students.