Daily Mains Answer Writing –03 November 2025

Model Answer

Introduction

Climate technologies—ranging from renewable energy systems and carbon capture mechanisms to hydrogen and storage innovations—represent the forefront of human response to the climate crisis. They embody the optimism that science and engineering can compensate for the damage caused by decades of fossil fuel dependence. Yet, a purely techno-centric pathway risks oversimplifying a multidimensional challenge. The effectiveness of these technologies is restrained by factors that extend beyond laboratory efficiency: social legitimacy, financial feasibility, and systemic behavioral inertia. Hence, while indispensable, technology alone cannot resolve the structural roots of the climate problem.

Body

1. Technological Constraints:

• Low maturity: Several climate technologies such as advanced carbon capture and direct air capture (DAC) remain in pilot phases.
• Scalability issues: Technologies proven in controlled settings often fail to deliver at commercial scale.
• Performance uncertainty: Long-term reliability and storage stability remain under study.
• Example: The world’s largest DAC plant in Iceland removes only 4,000 tonnes of CO₂ annually—minuscule compared to 37 billion tonnes emitted globally each year (IEA, 2024).

2. Economic and Market Barriers:

• High initial cost: Development and deployment require extensive capital investment.
• Investment gap: Private financing remains low due to uncertain returns and volatile carbon pricing.
• Example: Green hydrogen’s cost at $3–5 per kg must decline below $2 for market parity.
• Policy dependence: Without subsidies, few projects achieve profitability, creating fiscal stress in developing economies.

3. Social and Political Limitations:

• Public resistance: Wind and CCS projects face opposition due to land use, aesthetics, or safety concerns.
• Equity gap: Technological benefits often concentrate in advanced economies, widening the North–South divide.
• Trust deficit: Communities distrust large-scale technological interventions lacking transparency.

4. Systemic and Behavioral Dimensions:

• Beyond innovation: Climate mitigation requires shifts in consumption and values.
• Institutional reform: Governance, taxation, and behavioral incentives are equally critical.
• Holistic perspective: Technology must complement—not replace—societal and structural change.

Conclusion

Technology is a vital instrument but not a universal remedy. The climate crisis is rooted as much in patterns of production and inequality as in physical emissions. Without parallel reforms in governance, consumption, and ethics, even the most advanced technologies will offer only temporary relief. Sustainable climate action thus demands a synergy between innovation, equity, and systemic transformation rather than blind faith in technological salvation.

Model Answer

Introduction

The notion of “carbon tunnel vision” highlights a critical ethical flaw in contemporary climate strategies—reducing the entire environmental challenge to a single numerical target of carbon emissions. While carbon management is essential, exclusive focus on it risks neglecting biodiversity, justice, and social equity. Climate change is not merely a carbon problem but a symptom of deeper ecological and moral imbalance.

Body

1. Ethical Implications:

• Equity distortion: Overemphasis on carbon efficiency marginalizes vulnerable communities, especially in the Global South.
• Intergenerational injustice: Prioritizing present economic convenience over future habitability violates fairness principles.
• Moral reductionism: Treating climate action as a technical exercise erodes personal and institutional moral responsibility.

2. Environmental Trade-offs:

• Biodiversity loss: Large-scale biofuel plantations cause deforestation and habitat fragmentation.
• Hydrological stress: Hydropower and desalination, though low-carbon, disrupt aquatic ecosystems.
• Toxic residues: Solar panels and batteries generate end-of-life waste, creating secondary pollution crises.

3. Ethical Climate Governance:

• Holistic vision: Integrate carbon reduction with goals of biodiversity conservation and community resilience.
• Life-cycle assessment: Evaluate environmental costs from production to disposal.
• Justice principle: Global climate policies must ensure fair burden-sharing across nations and classes.

Conclusion

Carbon tunnel vision obscures the moral and ecological richness of the climate problem. Ethical climate governance must expand its lens—valuing ecosystems, equity, and cultural well-being alongside emission cuts. True sustainability arises not from counting tonnes of carbon, but from nurturing just relationships among people, economies, and nature.

Model Answer

Introduction

The global transition toward net-zero is increasingly defined by emerging technologies such as carbon capture, green hydrogen, and geoengineering. They embody the hope of technological rescue in a decarbonizing world. However, their promise is shadowed by risks—economic, ethical, and ecological. A nuanced evaluation of these technologies reveals both their revolutionary potential and their perilous limitations.

Body

1. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS):

• Function: Captures CO₂ from power plants and industries for underground storage.
• Current status: About 77 projects operational worldwide—far below the scale needed (Global CCS Institute, 2024).
• Constraint: High energy intensity and cost of capture make widespread use difficult.
• Risk: Leakage and long-term monitoring issues undermine confidence.

2. Green Hydrogen:

• Potential: Provides clean energy for steel, fertiliser, and transport sectors.
• Dependency: Requires abundant renewable energy and water resources.
• Cost challenge: Production at $3–5/kg is uncompetitive; target is below $2/kg by 2030.
• Opportunity: Growing global partnerships (India–EU Hydrogen Alliance) indicate future promise.

3. Geoengineering:

• Definition: Artificial intervention in Earth’s systems to reflect sunlight or absorb CO₂.
• Techniques: Solar radiation management, ocean fertilisation, and stratospheric aerosol injection.
• Uncertainty: Could disrupt monsoon cycles, rainfall, and food security in tropical regions.
• Ethical issue: Offers temporary relief without addressing root causes.

4. Balancing Promise and Risk:

• Innovation potential: Can decarbonize difficult sectors.
• Danger of delay: Overreliance postpones behavioral change and real emission cuts.
• Governance need: Establish global codes under UNFCCC for oversight and liability.

Conclusion

Emerging climate technologies are essential stepping stones but not ultimate solutions. They must operate within ethical, regulatory, and ecological boundaries. The world’s path to net-zero will depend not merely on new inventions but on how equitably and responsibly we deploy them—ensuring that innovation serves humanity rather than hubris.

Model Answer

Introduction

India’s declaration of achieving net-zero by 2070 reflects an ambitious fusion of development and decarbonisation. Technology occupies the core of this vision—through renewable energy expansion, carbon capture experimentation, and the National Green Hydrogen Mission. The transition promises economic growth and climate resilience, but its success depends on addressing costs, inclusivity, and governance bottlenecks. A critical analysis is vital to gauge whether India’s technological leap can also be socially and environmentally just.

Body

1. Opportunities for India:

• Sectoral decarbonisation: Green hydrogen can decarbonize steel, fertiliser, and long-haul transport.
• Investment magnet: The Mission aims to attract ₹8 lakh crore investment and create 600,000 jobs (MNRE, 2024).
• Energy security: Reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels strengthens self-reliance.
• Global leadership: India can position itself as a low-cost producer and exporter of green hydrogen.
• Innovation ecosystem: Encourages domestic manufacturing of electrolysers and battery storage.

2. Challenges in Implementation:

• Cost barriers: Green hydrogen costs $3.5–5/kg; competitiveness requires falling below $2/kg.
• Infrastructure deficit: Renewable integration, grid storage, and supply chains are underdeveloped.
• Resource strain: High land and water demand may affect local sustainability.
• Just transition concern: Coal-based regions like Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh risk economic displacement.
• Institutional gaps: State-level policies and financing frameworks remain inconsistent.

3. Pathways for a Just and Sustainable Transition:

• Policy alignment: Synchronize central missions with state energy plans.
• Green finance: Expand sovereign green bonds and blended finance models.
• Social inclusion: Provide retraining and income support for affected workers.
• Circular practices: Promote recycling of critical minerals and battery materials.
• Public participation: Ensure community consultation in renewable siting and hydrogen hubs.

Conclusion

India’s technological climate strategy blends aspiration with pragmatism. It can redefine growth through innovation, employment, and energy self-sufficiency. Yet, the transition must remain human-centred—anchored in justice, affordability, and ecological prudence. Technology can power India’s green future only when guided by inclusive governance and moral responsibility toward both people and planet.