Wednesday, May 07, 2025

Danielle Smith dismisses Doug Ford's warning against separatist threats from Alberta

JUST AS THE PQ AND BQ HAVE DONE IN THE PAST OVER QUEBEC SEPERATION


Story by Lisa Johnson
CANADIAN PRESS
MAY 6.2025


Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announces proposed changes to several pieces of democratic process legislation, in Edmonton on Tuesday, April 29, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jason Franson© The Canadian Press

EDMONTON — Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is urging her Ontario counterpart Doug Ford to mind his own business when it comes to talk of separating from Canada.

Smith announced this week that she doesn’t want Alberta to leave Canada but, if enough residents sign a petition asking for a referendum on it, she’ll make sure it’s put to a vote in 2026.

Ford, without mentioning Smith by name, said Tuesday that Canadian unity is critical as the country engages in a tariff fight with the United States.

"This is a time to unite the country, not people saying, 'Oh, I'm leaving the country,'" Ford said.

Asked about his remarks, Smith said she has a great friendship with Ford but that they have different jurisdictions to govern.

"I don't tell him how he should run his province, and I would hope that he doesn't tell me how I should run mine," she said.

She made the comments at a news conference Tuesday, answering a wide range of questions about everything from the potential economic impact of separatism threats to the continued concern of Indigenous leaders.

Last week, Smith’s United Conservative government introduced legislation that, if passed, would sharply reduce the bar petitioners need to meet to trigger a provincial referendum.

Related video: Alberta premier defends speech outlining grievances with Ottawa (Global News)  On a day when all eyes were on Washington





Chiefs from more than a dozen First Nations across Alberta held what they called an emergency meeting in Edmonton on Tuesday and, at a news conference, condemned any talk of Alberta separation.

Many have warned that their treaties with the Crown predate the province and that Alberta doesn't have the authority to challenge those agreements.

Piikani Nation Chief Troy Knowlton said he voted for Smith's United Conservative Party but didn't vote for policies like the legislation tabled last week.

"The rhetoric and insanity of separation here in Alberta has united First Nations on this land, all across Canada from coast to coast to coast," he said.

"We're not going anywhere, and if you feel that you have problems with First Nations, you could leave."

Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Chief Allan Adam, whose community is located downstream of the Alberta oilsands, said he's calling for all development and exploration on traditional territories to stop immediately.

as First Nations people are saying that if Alberta wants to separate and doesn't want to be part of Canada, then you're not allowed on our traditional territories anymore for exploration because we don't know who you're exploring for," he said.

Cold Lake First Nations Chief Kelsey Jacko also said the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations cancelled a planned meeting with Smith.

"The meeting has been cancelled until she changes her tone," Jacko said.

Smith has said she is committed to protecting and upholding treaties, but hasn't offered details about how she would do so.


On Tuesday, she said treaty rights can't be voted away and she would expect those rights to be honoured by any referendum question.

“Any discussion that we're having, including Alberta expressing its own constitutional sovereignty, is about Alberta's relationship with Ottawa," she said.

When asked if she had a mandate from voters to open the door to secession, Smith pointed out that her party doesn’t officially support separation.

“I don’t have a mandate,” she said, reiterating that the question will need to be put on the table by citizens.

“All I've said is I will honour the process, and the public very clearly knows that we are a party of direct democracy,” she said.

Smith repeatedly said that it would be pre-emptive to imagine what impact a ballot question might have because none have been put forward or worded yet. But, she confirmed that she would respect the wishes of Albertans should a majority vote in favour.

Her appearance came as Prime Minister Mark Carney met with U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C.

When asked about Smith’s potential referendum, Carney told reporters there that Canada is always stronger when Canadians work together.

"As an Albertan I firmly believe you can always ask a question, but I know what I would respond, clearly."

In Quebec, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, the leader of the sovereigntist Parti Québécois, said Smith is simply standing up for her province's autonomy.

St-Pierre Plamondon said Tuesday that Smith has used the possibility of a referendum to give her province leverage as she makes demands of the federal government.

Alberta has long fought with Liberals in Ottawa and Smith has said their policies have amounted to an attack on Alberta and its ability to develop its oil and gas industry.

Smith’s approach includes chairing town halls from May to October to hear grievances from Albertans, while sending a negotiating team to Ottawa to demand concessions to boost Alberta’s economy.

--With files from Jack Farrell in Edmonton and Allison Jones in Toronto

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 6, 2025.

Lisa Johnson, The Canadian Press





 

Media Organisations Demand End to Israel’s Genocide



Peoples Dispatch 

On World Press Freedom Day, media organizations from across the globe released a joint statement demanding an end to Israel’s genocide in Gaza.


Over 50 media organizations from countries across the world released a statement on World Press Freedom Day, honoring the Palestinian journalists who have been killed and those that continue to risk their lives exposing Israel’s genocidal assault on the Gaza Strip. The organizations demand press freedom, which cannot exist while genocide continues and journalists are targeted.

The full statement reads:

May 3 marks World Press Freedom Day, which will be commemorated this year amid Israel’s ongoing genocidal aggression against the Gaza Strip and countries of the region.

Since this genocide began, tens of thousands of innocent people, most of them children, women, and elderly have been murdered and tens of thousands of others have been injured. The aggression has included a total systematic destruction of the Gaza Strip and its infrastructure, in addition to forced displacement, blockade, and the starvation of the people in Gaza.

Amid this barbarity, the people of the world have stood firmly with the Palestinian people in demanding an end to the genocide in Gaza, an end to Israel’s colonial occupation of Palestine, and an end to its aggression against Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria. The unprecedented outpouring of international solidarity and support has been in great part due to the work of Palestinian journalists who have sacrificed their lives to document this genocide and tell the stories happening on the ground, forever shifting public opinion against the Israeli state and its primary backer, the United States.

Their immeasurable sacrifice has had a toll, Palestinian journalists have been singled out by Israeli forces, who have bombed media offices, journalists’ accommodations, and press vans in Palestine and Lebanon.

Israel’s war on the people of the region has been the most deadly in recent history for journalists, with over 200 killed, and the number continuing to rise.

All of this has happened while the regimes that boast human rights, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, international law, and international conventions are drowning in the darkness of silence.

Further undermining of press freedom has taken place on digital platforms where texts mentioning “zionist” “genocide” and “Palestine” are censored, shadow-banned, and deleted.

On this World Press Freedom Day, we declare that there can be no press freedom as long as genocide is taking place and as long as our colleagues in Palestine and Lebanon are targeted in a futile attempt to extinguish the voices that clamor against Israel’s genocide and occupation.

We call on people of conscience, journalists, and media outlets to join us in upholding and defending true press freedom and to continue reporting on Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people and the peoples of the region.

We extend our greetings to the journalists of conscience all over the globe

Glory and eternity to journalist martyrs

May 3, 2025

Signatories:

  1. Taqadoom, Kuwait
  2. Peoples Dispatch, International
  3. African Stream, Kenya
  4. Al Akhbar English, Lebanon
  5. Al Hadaf Magazine, Palestine
  6. Al Maydan, Sudan
  7. Al Nahj, Morocco
  8. Al Nida, Lebanon
  9. Al Nour Newspaper, Syria
  10. Altaqadomi, Bahrain
  11. ANRED, Argentina
  12. ARG Medios, Argentina
  13. Barricada TV, Argentina
  14. Brasil de Fato, Brazil
  15. BreakThrough News, US
  16. Capire, International
  17. Colombia Informa, Colombia
  18. Coloquio Internacional Patria, Cuba
  19. Comuna Audiovisual, Argentina
  20. Comunicambio, Peru
  21. ComunicaSul, Brazil
  22. CovertAction Magazine, US
  23. Dialogos do Sul Global, Brazil
  24. Dominio Cuba, Cuba
  25. El Grito del Sur, Argentina
  26. Europe for Palestine, Europe
  27. Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism, UK
  28. Globetrotter, International
  29. Insurrecta, Ecuador
  30. International Magazine, India
  31. La Komuna Noticias, Peru
  32. Laborans, Turkey
  33. Liberation News, US
  34. Madar, International
  35. Mint Press News, US
  36. Nawafth, Egypt
  37. Nida al Wattan, Jordan
  38. Opera Mundi, Brazil
  39. Pagine Esteri, Italy
  40. Palestine Chronicle, Palestine
  41. Pan African TV, Ghana
  42. Periferia UY, Uruguay
  43. Prensa Rural, Colombia
  44. Radio Gráfica, Argentina
  45. Red Alterna, Colombia
  46. Republic Palestine, Palestine
  47. Resumen Latinoamericano, Argentina
  48. Revista Crisis, Argentina
  49. Revista Crisis, Ecuador
  50. Sout Alshaab FM, Lebanon
  51. Sout Alshaab, Tunisia
  52. Tareeq Alshaap, Iraq
  53. Telesur English, Latin America and the Caribbean
  54. Telesur, Latin America and the Caribbean
  55. Thaqafa Jadeda Magazine, Iraq
  56. The Insight Newspaper, Ghana
  57. The Katie Halper Show, US
  58. Venezuela Analysis, Venezuela

 

Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch

 

Why Tariff Parleys With US Will Hurt Indian Farmers

Prabhat Patnaik 

The net outcome will be a cut in Indian tariff rates vis-à-vis US goods, which will mean lowering of MSP for foodgrains and the entry of heavily subsidised American grains into India.

Elementary textbooks in economics invariably begin with a completely mythical concept: the concept of “perfect competition”, which is different from the concept of “free competition” that the classical economists and Marx had used.

“Free competition” was characterised by the equality of wages (for equal skills) and of profit-rates across sectors; all it required for its realisation was free mobility of labour and of capital across sectors, which was by no means a far-fetched assumption in the pre-monopoly era.

“Perfect competition” by contrast is characterised additionally by zero profits. This can happen only in one situation: whenever any positive profits are being earned in any sector, so many capitalists flood into that sector that the positive profits disappear. This requires not only free mobility across sectors but free mobility into the ranks of capitalists, that is, workers can become capitalists whenever there are positive profits.

“Perfect competition”, therefore, assumes perfect social mobility, namely, a classless society, which is an absurd assumption to make for a capitalist society and hence a completely mythical state of affairs in the present context.

The prices prevailing in equilibrium under this “perfect competition”, however, have some properties of optimality, because of which, if they prevailed, then any deviations from them would be inadvisable.

Yet, in designing the new international trade rules, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) made the totally illicit assumption that this mythical state of “perfect competition” is what actually prevailed in the world, so that any deviations of prices from what actually prevailed was to be avoided. Accordingly, it stipulated that any subsidies given through price support to producers in any sector were to be avoided as being “trade-distorting”, while subsidies given in the form of income transfers to the same producers were perfectly permissible.

The utter absurdity of this stipulation becomes obvious from the fact that any effort in the real world of today to curb monopolists’ profits by having controls over their profit-margins, would be prohibited as being price-distorting and trade distorting, hence nonoptimal.

Read Also: Two Alternative Growth Models & Foodgrain Output

Indeed, it is amazing that such an absurd stipulation, that any interference with prices as they actually exist in today’s world should be avoided as these prices are optimal in a certain sense, a stipulation based on the pretence that the real world is characterised by “perfect competition”, could be rammed down the throats of so many countries of the Global South in reaching the WTO agreement. These countries should have known better; but they were browbeaten, and one obvious result of this was an assault on peasant agriculture.

It is well-known that advanced capitalist countries give enormous subsidies to their agriculturists, but these subsidies are in the form of direct income transfers rather than through the prices of the goods they sell. In the US and in the European Union such subsidies amount to almost half of the total value of the produce; in Japan, these almost equal the total value of the produce.

Despite their enormity, however, the WTO does not frown upon such subsidies because it considers them “non-price-distorting”, which is supposed to be a virtue because the world is supposed to be characterised by perfect competition. (Even this, however, is theoretically erroneous since in an economy marked by “perfect competition”, direct income transfers are supposed to distort the relative price between work and leisure, and hence are not strictly “non-price-distorting” but let us ignore it here).

But, in a country like India, where the government provides price-support to farmers, i.e., subsidises farmers by interfering with prices (like providing a minimum support price (MSP) or a procurement price), such support is objected to by the advanced capitalist countries and by the WTO, that approves of their subsidies as being “price-distorting”, hence “trade-distorting”, and wrong.

This insistence on “non-price-distorting” subsidies is not only theoretically unfounded, for the world does not conform to a “perfectly competitive economy”, but is impractical as well. Income support can be provided by the government to farmers in the US because there are only a few thousand farmers. But, in an economy like India, which has over a hundred million farmer households, the provision of individual income support to each household is simply not a practical proposition.

The only way that support can be given to so many farmers is through the price mechanism, through the blanket provision of a suitably remunerative price. To insist that support be provided solely through incomes rather than prices, therefore, amounts to demanding de facto an abolition of all support to farmers in a country like India.

Read Also: Trump Tariffs: India Should Shun ‘Business as Usual’ Response

This is, in fact, what has happened vis-a-vis cash crop growers in India: they no longer enjoy the kind of price support that they had earlier. Before the neoliberal regime was instituted, in years of world price crashes, the various government agencies, such as the tea board, coffee board, coir board etc., had stepped in to support domestic prices by purchasing crops at those prices, and the tariff rates had been suitably adjusted to make this possible. But this does not happen any longer.

This withdrawal of price support to cash crops in accordance with the WTO’s stipulations is what has contributed significantly to the large number of farmer suicides in the country over the past several decades, something that had never happened in post-Independence India in the pre- “liberalisation” years.

The government wanted to withdraw price-support from foodgrains as well, which it had not dared to do earlier, through the three infamous farm laws; but the year-long farmer agitation forced it to retract temporarily, though it has not abandoned its project of withdrawing price-support.

US President Donald Trump’s tariff policy has now brought this issue back on the immediate agenda. If India had just imposed retaliatory tariffs against Trump’s tariff-hike, and left the matter there, then there would have been no threats to the farmers.

But since India has agreed to negotiate with the Trump administration, which basically means that it has agreed to lower its tariffs vis-a-vis American goods in return for the US not raising tariffs against India, clearly the amount of price protection that the foodgrain producers had got until now will no longer be available to them.

The net outcome of these negotiations will be a reduction in Indian tariff rates vis-à-vis American goods which will necessarily mean a lowering of the MSP for foodgrains (if at all they continue to exist), and the entry of heavily subsidised American grains (through income transfers) into the Indian market. The long-cherished dream of the US to export its grains to India, unfulfilled since the Green Revolution, will finally get realised.

This would be a disaster from India’s point of view. Not only will it entail much greater distress for farmers, and hence an increase in the incidence of farmer suicides (which had been less severe till now in the case of grain farmers), but a loss of food security for the country.

The country will not only become dependent on food imports from the US which will give the Americans great leverage over Indian policy-making, but the incidence of famines will also increase.

As farmers shift away from producing foodgrains toward other crops that may be remunerative at that moment, when the prices of such crops crash, as they inevitably do on the world market, the country would be short of foreign exchange to purchase foodgrains internationally.

What is more, even if this does not happen, or “food aid” is forthcoming from the US (for which, of course, it will extract a price in some form), the farmers will lack the purchasing power to buy such imported foodgrains. Either way, the country will be pushed into a famine.

This is precisely what has happened in Africa. Several African countries were induced to give up foodgrain production and become importers instead, in the name of exploiting their “comparative advantage”; but they have been racked by famines whenever the prices of the crops they export have crashed.

Economist Amiya Bagchi calls these famines “globalisation famines”, that is, famines that occur because of the abandonment of foodgrain self-sufficiency that is induced by globalisation. Until now, Africa had been the victim of “globalisation famines”; now India will also be a victim, ironically as a fall-out of Trump’s threat to move away from globalisation.

The government, no doubt, will claim that farmers’ interests will not be sacrificed in the trade negotiations with the US; but any reduction in tariffs vis-à-vis American goods will hurt farmers’ interest. The very fact of India’s entering into trade negotiations with the US, therefore, is inimical to farmers’ interest.

Trump’s not raising tariffs vis-à-vis India as a quid pro quo for India’s lowering of tariffs vis-à-vis the US will bring no benefit to our foodgrain growing farmers, since they are not significant exporters of foodgrains to the US. It may bring some benefit to the Indian monopoly capitalists engaged in manufacturing; but that will not make an iota of difference to the grim fate of Indian farmers.

The writer is Professor Emeritus, Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. The views are personal.

 

High-Stakes, Global Battle Over Trump’s Tariffs


John Ross 




Through his “tariff war”, Trump seeks to subvert multilateral institutions and renegotiate trade agreements to (even further) benefit the US.

Trump’s “tariff war” is not an issue solely or even primarily about the US economy. It is an attempt to bring the entire world trading system under unilateral US control, removing any minimal element of multilateral negotiation from it.

In essence, the United States, despite accounting for only 11% of world trade and 4% of the global population, is demanding the right to unilaterally dictate the rules of global trade to the rest of the world.

If Trump succeeds in this effort, the consequences would be sweeping and deeply negative. Trade now constitutes 58% of global GDP, meaning that the livelihoods of more than 8 billion people would be directly affected by the outcome of this confrontation.

However, the numbers also show the objective weakness of Trump’s global position: 89% of global trade is not with the US. If other governments resist this pressure, Trump cannot succeed. He is, therefore, depending on the willingness of some governments to surrender their people’s and their national interests and capitulate to Washington’s demands. Unfortunately, based on past events, there is a danger that some governments may do exactly that. This makes it essential for people around the world, and for progressive and democratic forces, to understand what is at stake and to oppose this project.

The WTO system

It must be clearly emphasized: the current world trade system, embodied in the World Trade Organization (WTO), is itself fundamentally flawed and unjust. While the WTO formally operates on the principle of “one country, one vote”, in practice, trade deals are shaped by the major capitalist powers behind closed doors. Rich countries continue to shield their own industries with high tariffs in sectors where developing countries are competitive. They impose technical barriers, such as anti-dumping duties, to block exports from the Global South.

Multinational corporations – overwhelmingly headquartered in the Global North – have privileged influence within the WTO system. Progressive social and developmental policies are excluded from WTO decision-making. The TRIPS Agreement (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) prioritizes corporate profits over access to medicine and technology. The Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) allows chronic dumping of subsidized food exports from the Global North while failing to protect small farmers in the Global South, resulting in devastating crises such as farmer suicides in countries like India.

Despite these flaws, socialists and democrats have long understood that the choice is rarely between a good and bad system, but between a flawed system and something worse. Failing to recognize this can lead to grave mistakes.

In the meantime…

A classic example is the position toward capitalist democracy. While it is true that liberal democracy ultimately operates within the framework of capitalist domination – where private capital controls the economy, where media and elections are heavily dominated by wealth, and where military coups are used to overturn democratic systems if the rule of capital is challenged – progressive forces still recognize the need to defend parliamentary democracy against fascist or authoritarian threats. Lenin and Gramsci made this point clear during the earliest fights against fascism in Italy in the 1920s, confronting those on the left who failed to grasp this distinction.

Sometimes, alliances must even be made with imperialist powers. For instance, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was the leader of US imperialism, aiming to establish US global dominance, while UK Prime Minister Churchill was a racist and an antisemite, responsible for atrocities such as the 1943 Bengal famine. Yet the Soviet Union rightly allied with both the US and Britain to fight against the still greater threat posed by Nazi Germany and Japanese militarism. Progressive forces also supported such an alliance, and failing to make it would have been a catastrophic error.

Trump’s goal is not to reform or improve the current global trade system, fundamentally flawed though it is. He opposes it precisely because even its minimal multilateral rules constrain US dominance. His aim is to replace multilateralism with a system based solely on bilateral agreements in which the US can use its weight to dominate smaller partners individually.

Such a system would be a major regression even compared to the WTO. It would remove even the modest protections offered by multilateralism and replace them with arbitrary, US-dictated terms, vulnerable to sudden changes depending on Washington’s interests.

Mexico

A vivid example is Mexico. In 1992, Mexico entered a trilateral deal with the US and Canada – NAFTA. During his first term, Trump discarded NAFTA in favor of the USMCA, a deal more favorable to US interests. That agreement still allowed about half of Mexican exports to enter tariff-free, and many others faced only a 2.5% tariff. But in his second term, Trump declared this was still not favorable enough and imposed a 25% tariff on most Mexican goods not covered under USMCA. Canada faced similar treatment.

Trump’s model is clear: he wants a global trade regime where the US can change the rules at will, penalizing any country it deems too successful or politically inconvenient.

Given how clearly this undermines the interests of nearly every other country, one might assume all governments would resist such a system. And it is true that the US cannot impose this model unilaterally, given it accounts for just 11% of global trade. But experience shows that some governments do bow to US pressure, even at great cost to their own nations.

Europe is the largest and clearest case. Western European governments backed disastrous US policies such as NATO expansion, which led to the war in Ukraine. That war not only caused massive human suffering but also severed Europe’s energy ties with Russia, driving energy prices in Europe far higher and deeply damaging European economies and living standards. These decisions ran counter to Europe’s own economic, social, and geopolitical interests.

Mexico and Canada have announced that they will retaliate against US tariffs. China, the world’s largest trading nation, has declared that it will counter-sanction any country that, under US pressure, takes hostile trade measures against Chinese exports. President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico has publicly opposed US pressure and defended Mexico’s sovereignty. The results of the Canadian election also show strong opposition to subordination to US demands.

The understanding and resistance of the peoples of countries, demanding that their governments oppose these US actions, is crucial. The fight is not just about tariffs. It is about whether the future of world trade will be determined by a fundamentally flawed trade system, which requires drastic improvement, but which contains at least some minimal elements of multilateral negotiation and compromise, or one determined purely by unilateral US power. As so often in the past, but without any evasion, socialists must defend a fundamentally flawed system against one which is still worse.

John Ross is a senior fellow at Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. He is also a member of the international No Cold War campaign organizing committee. His writing on the Chinese and US economies and geopolitics has been published widely online and he is the author of two books published in China, Don’t Misunderstand China’s Economy and The Great Chess Game. His most recent book is China’s Great Road: Lessons for Marxist Theory and Socialist Practices. He was previously director of economic policy for the mayor of London.

This article was produced by Globetrotter and No Cold War.

Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch

 

Modi Govt’s Coal Reform Policy Quashed Over Environmental Concerns




Ayaskant Das 


NGT rules coal source changes need fresh environmental clearances; criticises dilution of regulatory oversight through office memoranda.

New Delhi: In a jolt to the Narendra Modi government’s policy of watering down rules apparently to encourage the foray of corporate entities into commercial coal-mining, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has barred power plants from arbitrarily switching over to cheaper coal without obtaining fresh environmental clearance.

On April 28, the southern bench of NGT nullified a policy in place for the past five years whereby thermal power plants were allowed to change their “source of coal”, irrespective of ash content, calorific values or potential environmental hazards.

The Union Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (“the ministry”) had issued the policy through a “office memorandum” dated November 11, 2020, without consultation with stakeholders or conducting scientific assessments. Setting aside the office memoranda, a division bench of the tribunal comprising judicial member Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana and expert member Satyagopal Korlapati said:

“The MoEF&CC [the ministry] which is a regulatory body of the environment and ecology, instead of converting towards higher accountability it is drifting towards dilution in the name of reforms.”

The bench also rapped the ministry on its knuckles for effecting a policy change through an office memorandum which is merely an instrument to be used for administrative purposes.

“The OMs [office memoranda] in question are not legislative rules as they do not undergo the public consultation, stakeholder engagement or gazette publication in the same manner as that of the S.O or any statute. The OMs are issued without any scientific study or in fact assessment. The legal character of the OMs is administrative but their effect is legislative creating de facto exemptions from legal mandates. Such a shift in regulatory thresholds through OMs is inconsistent with the Principle of Legality and with well-established limits on delegated legislation,” the bench further said.

The petitioner in the case, highlighting the arbitrary nature of the policy change, had told the tribunal that “it indicates commercial interests prioritize over environmental protection” and that “it only reflects industrial facilitation approach rather than environmental regulation.”

The policy was among a series of reforms by the Modi government, brought quick on the heels of opening the coal sector for commercial mining by corporate entities. Experts had warned that such the reforms could have catastrophic consequences on local environment and livelihood of project-affected communities living in the vicinity of power plants. It was alleged that power projects would switch over to cheaper sources of coal, owing to higher quantity of ash content, without necessary environmental safeguards.

The opening of the coal sector for commercial mining has unlocked dozens of blocks, the reserves of which are of comparatively cheaper prices owing to higher ash content. Most domestic coal in India is known to have higher ash content than imported coal. As a result, quantity of fuel combusted for generation of one unit of electricity increases with usage of cheaper coal.

Though the office memorandum allowed power plants to change the fuel source without fresh environmental clearances, it prohibited establishment of additional ash ponds to store the commensurate increase in fly ash generated from the combustion of cheaper coal.

The new policy envisaged for “High Concentration Slurry Disposal (HCSD) systems due to their ecological advantages including reduced ash pond size, lower water consumption and minimal environmental contamination from runoff water or dust dispersion”.

However, the tribunal observed that the ministry failed to take cognizance of the fact that increased coal usage and ash generation will directly impact the quantum of water consumed by thermal power plants. “Water required for cooling purposes increases on account of increased quantity of coal combustion, water consumed in ash handling system will increase greatly as more water is required for making the dust cooling higher quantity of ash into slurry to be transported through pipelines,” it said.

Twice during hearing of the case – as the tribunal has observed in its judgement – the ministry amended the notification to apparently portray that environmental safeguards were being taken care of in allowing industries to change the source of coal at will.

The NGT observed that permission to change fuel source without amendment of environmental clearance would tantamount to “submission of false information or suppression of information since the character of pollution as well as quantum of pollution load varies with the source of coal and combination of domestic and imported coal”.

The tribunal further noted that “shifting to domestic coal will result in higher loads of fly ash generation which can impact both air and water quality” while in case of imported coal (which has higher quantities of sulphur), emission of toxic sulphurous oxides “will increase which can affect the air quality and could also result in acid rains which can in turn impact water and soil qualities.”

When the above mentioned apprehensions were expressed during the arguments, the ministry brought an amendment to the office memorandum on December 6, 2023 capping the limits of blending domestic and imported coal for industries to avoid fresh environment impact assessment. The necessity of carrying out environment impact assessment was still ruled out in cases of switching over from “domestic coal to domestic coal” or from “imported coal to domestic coal with the same calorific value”.

The ministry amended the notification yet again on January 7, 2025 when it was asked by the tribunal to examine the technical aspects of the policy granting permission for change in coal source without environmental clearance.

In the latest amendment, the ministry made a reference to its own notification regarding fly ash utilisation deadlines for thermal power plants. Through a notification dated December 31, 2021 – among a series of guidelines issued over the past 27 years to tighten compliance obligations and timeline for ash disposal and reuse – the ministry has set clear deadlines for power plants to complete disposal of fly ash.

The ministry made it clear in the new amended office memorandum that the guidelines dated December 31, 2021 were to apply irrespective of change in coal source. It further made it mandatory for thermal power plants changing coal source to ensure that “loading, unloading, transport, storage and disposal of ash is done in an environmentally sound manner and that all precautions to prevent air and water pollution are taken and status in this regard shall be reported to the concerned State Pollution Control Board”.

However, the NGT noted that the thermal power sector continues to under-preform in ash utilisation taking cognizance of various reports of the Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) of India and the Central Pollution Control Board. “In the light of the above, the invocation of 2021 notification in the 2025 amendment appears performative, lacking real regulatory bit,” said the tribunal.

Apart from missing deadlines, thermal power projects have in the past also resorted to improper disposal of fly ash resulting in adverse impacts on environment and livelihoods of local communities. As per the Central Electricity Authority (CEA), which is India’s premier government body for policy formulation in the power sector:

“Indian Coal is of Low Grade with Ash Content of the order of 24 – 63 % in comparison to Imported Coal which has Low Ash Content of the order of 3 – 20 %. Large Quantity of Ash is, thus being generated at Coal / Lignite based Thermal Power Stations in the Country, which not only requires Large Area of precious Land for its disposal but is also one of the sources of Pollution of both Air and Water.”

The CEA’s fly ash utilisation report of March 2023 states that a mere 78.14% of total fly ash generated by all thermal power projects across the country during the first half of the financial year 2022-23 was properly utilised. This compares poorly with the corresponding figure for the first half of the previous financial year, which stood at 81.65%.

Experts have pointed out that arbitrary change to cheaper coal not only causes unforeseen pollution during combustion but also during transportation.

“The quality of coal and the route it takes to reach power plants after mining contribute significantly to air pollution and socio-economic impacts of a coal-based power plant. Any change in the coal source must be thoroughly evaluated by the competent committee vide the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. This will ensure a proper assessment of environmental and socio-economic impacts and help minimize incremental pollution, if the power plants seek a change in source for economic or logistical reasons,” Sunil Dahiya, founder and lead analyst of Envirocatalysts, an independent organisation working on the crossroads of environment, climate change and livelihoods, told this correspondent.

The petitioner had argued that environmental clearance to a thermal power plant is granted based on a firm coal linkage and disclosure of the coal source and coal characteristics. “The impact of various aspects like air emissions, impact due to transport, storage, coal handling, water requirement, ash generation and storage, ash ponds and utilization etc. are assessed, and anticipated impact is forecasted. Only based on the above factors, a public hearing is conducted after which the project is appraised and the Environmental Clearnce is issued,” the petitioner had argued.

The court said that “integrity of environmental governance” cannot be undermined for the sake of “prioritizing ease of business and operational flexibility”. It said, that from the environmental stand point, the changes brought in through the office memoranda “can permit transition to coal sources that may in practice result in higher emission or other forms of pollution due to blending practices, differences in coal quality or operation inefficiencies, none of which are evaluated prior to the exemption taking effect.” It quashed the memoranda saying that those “do not offer any methodology for assessing or verifying pollution load differences before exempting the project from regulatory oversight”.

The writer is an independent journalist.