Current Affairs 08 January 2026

Content

1. India’s Progress on Its Climate Targets
2. Trump–Greenland Remarks
3. Jabarkhet Nature Reserve & Alternative Wildlife Tourism
4. Why Silver Prices Surged ~160% in 2025
5. Turkman Gate
6. Contaminated Water Crisis in Indore & Bhopal

---

India’s Progress on Climate Targets 

---

Why in News?

• Recent Aravalli judgment revived debate on environmental governance, mining, and climate commitments.
• Over 10 years since India’s climate pledges under the Paris Agreement, prompting evaluation of delivery vs outcomes.
• Updated data on emissions intensity, renewable capacity, and forest carbon sinks (ISFR 2023, CEA projections).
• Relevance to India’s 2070 Net Zero credibility.

Relevance

• GS-3 | Environment & Climate Change
  • Paris Agreement commitments, emissions intensity vs absolute emissions
  • Renewable energy transition, coal dependence, storage bottlenecks

India’s Climate Commitments (Paris, 2015)

• Reduce emissions intensity of GDP by 33–35% from 2005 levels by 2030.
• Achieve 40% non-fossil power capacity by 2030 (later raised to ~50%).
• Install 175 GW renewables by 2022.
• Create 2.5–3 billion tonnes CO₂e forest carbon sink by 2030.
• Principle: Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR).

Emissions Intensity: Success with Caveats

• Achievement:
  • Emissions intensity reduced by ~36% by 2020 (2005 baseline).
  • Target met a decade early.
• Drivers:
  • Rapid non-fossil capacity expansion (solar, wind, hydro, nuclear).
  • Structural shift towards services & digital economy.
  • Efficiency schemes: PAT, UJALA → measurable energy savings.
• Limitation:
  • Absolute emissions remain high (~2,959 MtCO₂e in 2020).
  • India is the 3rd largest absolute emitter globally.
• Conceptual Issue:
  • Partial decoupling: GDP growth > emissions growth.
  • Intensity ↓, but emissions ↑ in cement, steel, transport.

Renewable Energy: Capacity–Generation Mismatch

• Headline Success:
  • Non-fossil capacity rose from ~29.5% (2015) to ~51.4% (June 2025).
  • Solar: ~3 GW (2014) → ~111 GW (2025).
• Ground Reality:
  • Renewables contribute only ~22% of electricity generation (2024–25).
  • Coal (~240–253 GW) still provides >70% of electricity.
• Reasons:
  • Low capacity factors of solar/wind.
  • Intermittency and grid integration limits.
  • Delays in land acquisition and transmission.
• Targets Missed:
  • 175 GW by 2022 not achieved.
  • 500 GW by 2030 feasible but execution-heavy.

Storage Deficit: Core Bottleneck

• CEA projection (2029–30): 336 GWh storage needed.
• Actual operational storage (Sept 2025): ~500 MWh.
• Without storage:
  • Renewables cannot replace coal baseload.
  • Grid stability risks increase.

Forest Carbon Sink: Numbers vs Ecology

• Official Claim:
  • Total forest carbon stock: 30.43 billion tonnes CO₂e.
  • Additional sink since 2005: ~2.29 billion tonnes.
  • Target likely met numerically by 2030.
• Data Issues:
  • “Forest cover” includes:
    • Plantations, eucalyptus, tea, mango orchards.
    • Any land >1 ha with >10% canopy.
  • Natural forests vs plantations not differentiated.
• Governance Gaps:
  • CAMPA funds (~₹95,000 crore) under-utilised (e.g., Delhi ~23% usage).
  • Green India Mission (Revised, 2025) equates plantations with regeneration.
• Climate Stress:
  • Warming and water stress reduce actual carbon assimilation despite “greening” signals.

Structural Contradictions Highlighted

• Intensity gains coexist with rising absolute emissions.
• Renewable capacity growth masks coal-centric generation reality.
• Forest targets met administratively, not ecologically.
• Coal phase-down roadmap remains opaque.

The Road Ahead

• Battery & pumped storage scale-up at mission mode.
• Transparent coal transition timetable aligned with 2070 net zero.
• Industrial decarbonisation (steel, cement, transport).
• Forest governance reform: quality, biodiversity, survivability metrics.
• Data transparency: sector-wise, region-wise emissions tracking.
• Stronger Centre–State coordination on grids and land.

---

Trump–Greenland Remarks

---

Why in News?

• Donald Trump reportedly re-discussed the idea of purchasing Greenland during internal deliberations.
• The White House clarified:
  • No immediate diplomatic proposal.
  • Military action ruled out, but strategic discussions ongoing.
• Triggered diplomatic responses from Denmark and European leaders.
• Renewed global focus on Arctic geopolitics amid U.S.–China–Russia competition.

Relevance

• GS-2 | International Relations
  • Arctic geopolitics, great power competition (U.S.–China–Russia)
  • Sovereignty, self-determination, international law (UN Charter)
• GS-1 | Geography
  • Arctic region, climate change impact on polar routes

Greenland: Strategic Profile

• Autonomous territory under the Kingdom of Denmark.
• World’s largest island; population ~56,000.
• Located between North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans.
• Hosts a key U.S. military base (Pituffik/Thule Space Base).

Why Greenland Matters Geopolitically ?

Arctic Military Significance

• Controls access to Arctic air and naval routes.
• Critical for:
  • Ballistic missile early-warning systems.
  • Monitoring Russian Arctic activity.
• Integral to U.S. Arctic defence architecture and NATO security.

Great Power Competition

• Russia:
  • Expanding Arctic military bases.
  • Northern Sea Route militarisation.
• China:
  • Self-declared “near-Arctic state”.
  • Investments in mining, infrastructure, and research stations.
• U.S. concern: preventing Chinese strategic foothold in Greenland.

Resource Geopolitics

• Rich in critical minerals:
  • Rare Earth Elements (REEs).
  • Uranium, zinc, iron ore.
• Minerals essential for:
  • Green technologies.
  • Defence manufacturing.
• Seen as alternative to China-dominated rare earth supply chains.

Climate Change & Shipping

• Arctic ice melt opening:
  • Shorter transcontinental shipping routes.
  • New fishing and resource extraction zones.
• Greenland becomes central to future Arctic economic geography.

Diplomatic & Legal Constraints

• Greenland’s leadership and Denmark have rejected any sale.
• Greenland:
  • Right to self-determination.
  • Increasing push for eventual independence.
• Any transfer would violate:
  • Modern international norms.
  • Sovereignty principles under UN Charter.

European & NATO Reactions

• Denmark: Firm assertion that Greenland is not for sale.
• European leaders (France, Germany, Italy, Spain):
  • Expressed solidarity with Denmark.
  • Warned against destabilising Arctic order.
• Issue touches intra-NATO trust and cohesion.

Why This Matters for International Relations ?

• Illustrates:
  • Return of territorial geopolitics in a rules-based order.
  • Strategic salience of climate-affected regions.
• Highlights:
  • Arctic as a new theatre of great power rivalry.
  • Tension between strategic realism vs international law.

Takeaway

• The Greenland discussion is not about purchase, but about:
  • Strategic denial to rivals.
  • Long-term Arctic dominance.
• Reflects how climate change, resources, and security are converging to reshape global geopolitics.

---

Jabarkhet Nature Reserve (JNR) & Alternative Wildlife Tourism

---

Why in News?

• Jabarkhet Nature Reserve (JNR) near Mussoorie completed 10 years (2015–2025).
• Highlighted as India’s first privately owned and operated nature reserve with conservation as the primary goal.
• Comes amid:
  • Debate on mass tourism vs sustainable tourism in the Himalayas.
  • Ecological concerns over road widening, mining, deforestation (Himalayas, Aravallis).
• Offers a distinct third model of wildlife tourism, beyond tiger safaris and restricted national parks.

Relevance

• GS-3 | Environment
  • Biodiversity conservation beyond protected areas
  • Habitat restoration, landscape-level conservation

What is Jabarkhet Nature Reserve?

• Location: Near Mussoorie, Uttarakhand.
• Area: ~100 acres of restored Himalayan woodland.
• Ownership: Private (Jain family estate), conservation-led management.
• Objective:
  • Habitat restoration.
  • Wildlife-first access.
  • Low-impact, affordable nature tourism.

Ecological Significance

• High biodiversity in a small landscape:
  • 150 bird species (e.g. Rufous Sibia, Himalayan griffon vulture).
  • Mammals: leopard, goral, barking deer, black bear, civet, porcupine, leopard cat.
  • Flora:
    • Oaks, deodars, rhododendrons, walnuts.
    • 40 fern species.
    • Ground orchids, sundews (insectivorous plants).
    • Hundreds of fungi, grasses, >300 flowering plants.
• Acts as a refuge and stepping-stone habitat in a fragmented Himalayan landscape.

Alternative Model of Wildlife Tourism

Dominant Models in India

• Safari-based tourism:
  • Tiger reserves, gypsy safaris.
  • Crowding around “star species”.
• Guided community trails:
  • Niche, expert-driven, species-specific.

JNR’s “Third Model”

• Self-paced walking trails.
• Wildlife has first right of way.
• No vehicles, no fixed sightings, no spectacle.
• Emphasis on:
  • Natural history.
  • Slow engagement.
  • Low ecological footprint.
• Affordable access → not elitist eco-tourism.

Wider Environmental Context

• Himalayas:
  • Road widening → frequent landslides.
  • Tourism-led ecological stress.
• Aravallis:
  • Legal definitions enabling mining and commercial use.
• Implication:
  • Every intact natural habitat matters, even small private reserves.

Policy & Governance Insights

• Demonstrates potential of private conservation areas:
  • Complementing state-run protected areas.
• Raises questions on:
  • Regulation of “eco-tourism” labels.
  • Incentivising genuine private reserves.
• Supports landscape-level conservation beyond notified parks.

Takeaway

• JNR shows that wildlife recovery is possible without fencing, spectacle, or mass tourism, if:
  • Habitat integrity is prioritised.
  • Human access is restrained, not eliminated.
  • Local communities are stakeholders, not spectators.

---

Why Silver Prices Surged ~160% in 2025

---

Scale and Significance of the Surge

• Silver prices rose ~160% in 2025, outperforming gold.
• Prices crossed ₹2.4 lakh/kg by end-2025.
• Indicates a structural, not speculative-only, commodity rally.

Relevance

• GS-3 | Economy
  • Commodity markets, inflation hedging, financialisation
  • Gold–silver dynamics, impact of global monetary policy

Dual Nature of Silver: Investment + Industrial Metal

• Unlike gold (primarily a store of value), silver has:
  • High industrial utility.
  • Strong linkage with future technologies.
• Key demand sectors:
  • Solar photovoltaics.
  • Electric vehicles.
  • Batteries and electronics.
  • AI hardware and data centres.

Industrial Demand Boom

• Energy transition accelerated demand:
  • Solar panels use silver paste.
  • EVs require silver-intensive circuitry.
• AI-led digital expansion:
  • Data centres, servers, chips increased silver consumption.
• Result:
  • Silver demand grew faster than supply elasticity.

Supply-Side Constraints

• Silver production largely by-product mining (from zinc, copper).
• Constraints:
  • Long gestation period for new mines.
  • Environmental regulations.
  • Declining ore grades.
• USGS additions to “critical minerals” list increased scrutiny but not short-term supply.

Global Supply Mismatches

• London silver shortage (Oct 2025):
  • Physical availability tightened.
  • Spot prices spiked sharply.
• Structural mismatch between:
  • Physical silver demand.
  • Paper silver instruments.

Financialisation & Investment Demand

• Rising gold prices spilled over into silver.
• Drivers:
  • Inflation hedging.
  • Currency depreciation fears.
  • Safe-haven diversification.
• ETFs and mutual funds:
  • Sharp inflows earlier in 2025.
  • Some moderation later, but momentum sustained.

US–China & Geopolitical Factors

• Trade tensions disrupted metal supply chains.
• Tariffs and export controls:
  • Raised costs.
  • Encouraged stockpiling.
• Silver benefited as a strategic metal in clean-tech rivalry.

Comparison with Gold

• Gold:
  • Safer, slower, policy-driven.
• Silver:
  • More volatile.
  • More sensitive to industrial cycles.
• Hence:
  • Silver outperformed gold during tech- and energy-driven growth.

---

Turkman Gate 

---

Why in News?

• Turkman Gate has re-entered public discourse due to:
  • Renewed interest in Delhi’s Mughal-era urban heritage.
  • Contemporary debates on historical memory of the Emergency (1975–77).
• Often cited as a symbolic site associated with Emergency-era excesses, especially in urban Delhi.

Relevance

• GS-1 | Modern Indian History
  • Emergency (1975–77), urban history of Delhi
• GS-1 | Art & Culture
  • Mughal-era urban architecture, heritage of Shahjahanabad

 

Historical Background

• Built in the 17th century during the reign of Shah Jahan.
• Part of the fortified city of Shahjahanabad.
• One of the historic gateways controlling entry into Old Delhi.
• Named after Shah Turkan, associated with local Sufi traditions.
• Cultural-religious significance:
  • Site linked to the tomb of Shah Turkan.
  • Popular belief associates the area with Razia Sultana (burial traditions).

Urban Context (Pre-Emergency)

• Area developed into:
  • Dense residential settlement over centuries.
  • Mixed-use neighbourhood with markets and small trades.
• Surroundings reflected organic urban growth, typical of medieval Indian cities.

Turkman Gate During the Emergency (1975–77)

• Emergency imposed under Indira Gandhi.
• Turkman Gate emerged as a major flashpoint in Delhi.
• Area targeted under:
  • Slum clearance.
  • Urban “beautification” and road-widening drives.
• Strong local resistance turned the site into:
  • One of the most remembered urban episodes of the Emergency.

Symbolic Significance

• Represents:
  • The intersection of heritage, population, and state power.
  • How historic urban spaces became arenas for Emergency-era policies.
• Frequently referenced in:
  • Academic works.
  • Journalism.
  • Oral histories of Delhi.

---

Contaminated Water Crisis in Indore & Bhopal 

---

Why in News?

• At least 17 deaths in Indore linked to contaminated drinking water.
• Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) audit highlights massive loss of treated water in Madhya Pradesh’s two largest cities.
• Madhya Pradesh High Court has:
  • Declared access to clean drinking water a fundamental right.
  • Sought a status report from the State government.
• Rising hospital admissions and public protests have intensified scrutiny.

Relevance

• GS-2 | Governance & Social Justice
  • Right to clean drinking water (Article 21)
  • Municipal governance, accountability, judicial intervention
• GS-3 | Infrastructure & Public Health
  • Urban water management, non-revenue water, service delivery failures

Key Audit Findings (CAG)

Massive “Non-Revenue Water” Losses

• Indore:
  • Water loss: 65–70% (2013–18).
• Bhopal:
  • Water loss: 30–49%.
• Losses include:
  • Physical losses: pipeline leaks, joint failures, reservoir overflows.
  • Non-physical losses: theft, illegal connections, faulty meters, wastage.

Gap Between Water Drawn and Water Supplied

• Large discrepancy between:
  • Raw water extracted.
  • Water actually reaching households.
• CAG rejected municipal claims of lower losses as unsubstantiated.

Per Capita Water Supply Below Norms

• Bhopal:
  • Claimed: 135 LPCD (litres per capita per day).
  • CAG-estimated: 122 LPCD.
• Indore:
  • Target: 150 LPCD.
  • Claimed: 105 LPCD.
  • Actual (CAG): 58 LPCD.
• Indicates chronic under-delivery despite high water abstraction.

Large Number of Unconnected Households

• As of 2018:
  • Bhopal: ~1.43 lakh households without water connections.
  • Indore: ~2.68 lakh households without water connections.
• Forces dependence on unsafe or informal water sources.

Public Health Dimension

• Contaminated water linked to:
  • Kidney failure.
  • Rising hospital admissions.
• Health crisis exposes:
  • Direct linkage between infrastructure neglect and mortality.

Judicial Intervention

• Madhya Pradesh High Court observations:
  • Clean drinking water = Article 21 (Right to Life).
  • “No compromise” on water quality.
• Multiple PILs under hearing.
• Next hearing scheduled for 15 January 2026.

Governance & Policy Significance

• Highlights failures in:
  • Urban local body capacity.
  • Infrastructure maintenance.
  • Public service delivery.
• Shows importance of:
  • Audit institutions (CAG).
  • Judicial oversight in basic services.
• Raises questions on:
  • Sustainable urban water management.
  • Accountability of municipal corporations.

---