Environment and Natural Resources Class 12 Solutions

Concept used. The chapter explains that environmental concerns turned political because the harm caused by human economic activity became too large and too widespread for any one government to handle. To pick the best option, look for the cause that is general, human-made and dangerous, not one that applies to only a single group of countries or people.

The correct answer is option (c). The reasons:

1. Why (c) is right. The chapter lists shrinking cultivable land, falling soil fertility, overgrazed grasslands, over-harvested fisheries, polluted water bodies, vanishing forests, loss of biodiversity, the ozone hole and coastal pollution. All of these are caused by human activity, are spreading across the whole planet, and have reached a level that threatens ecosystems and human health. This is exactly what option (c) says.
2. Why (a) is too narrow. It is not only the developed countries that worry about nature, and their concern is not the main reason the issue became urgent. The driving reason is the scale of the damage itself.
3. Why (b) is incomplete. The environment matters for indigenous people and natural habitats, but this is one part of a much bigger picture. It does not, by itself, explain the worldwide alarm.
4. Why (d) is wrong. Since (c) clearly does explain the growing concern, "None of the above" cannot be correct.

(c) The environmental degradation caused by human activities has become pervasive and has reached a dangerous level.

Concept used. The Earth Summit was the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 1992. To mark each statement, check it against what the chapter says about the summit's attendance, its host, its significance and its form. All four statements here are correct.

1. (a) Correct. The chapter states the summit was attended by 170 states, thousands of NGOs and many multinational corporations (MNCs). The statement matches the textbook word for word.
2. (b) Correct. It was held under the aegis (the authority and umbrella) of the United Nations: its full name is the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
3. (c) Correct. The growing focus on the environment in global politics was firmly consolidated at this conference for the first time, bringing environmental issues to the centre-stage of world politics.
4. (d) Correct. It was indeed a summit meeting, a top-level gathering of heads of state and government, which is exactly why it is called the Earth "Summit".

All four are correct: (a) correct, (b) correct, (c) correct, (d) correct.

Concept used. The global commons (in Latin, res communis humanitatis) are areas and resources that lie outside the sovereign control of any single state and so need common governance by the international community. To judge each statement, test it against this definition and against what the chapter says about how the commons are managed. Statements (a), (b) and (c) are TRUE; (d) is false.

1. (a) True. The chapter names the Earth's atmosphere, Antarctica, the ocean floor and outer space as the global commons. The statement lists exactly these four.
2. (b) True. By definition the global commons sit outside the sovereign jurisdiction of any one state; that is precisely why they require shared, common governance.
3. (c) True. The history of managing the commons (for example the ozone hole and outer space) is "thoroughly influenced by North-South inequalities", so it clearly reflects the North-South divide.
4. (d) False. The chapter does not say the North cares more about protecting the commons. The North and South simply pursue different agendas: the North worries about ozone depletion and global warming, while the South stresses the link between development and the environment. Different priorities are not the same as the North caring more.

True: (a), (b) and (c). False: (d). The North is not "more" concerned about the commons; it simply has a different agenda from the South.

Concept used. The Rio Summit (the Earth Summit, 1992) was the conference that brought the environment to the centre of global politics. An "outcomes" question asks for the concrete results it produced: the conventions it adopted, the action plan it set out, and the new idea it established. Name each clearly.

The major outcomes of the Rio Summit were:

1. Conventions on climate change, biodiversity and forestry. The summit produced international conventions dealing with climate change, with biodiversity (the variety of life) and with forestry, setting the global agenda on each.
2. Agenda 21. It recommended a detailed list of development practices known as Agenda 21, a blueprint for how countries could develop in an environmentally friendly way in the 21st century.
3. The idea of sustainable development. There was a consensus on combining economic growth with ecological responsibility. This approach is called sustainable development: meeting present needs without destroying the ability of future generations to meet theirs.
4. The North-South gap was exposed, not closed. The summit revealed that the rich global North and the poor global South were following different agendas, and it left major differences unresolved. Critics also argued that Agenda 21 leaned in favour of economic growth rather than firm ecological conservation.

The Rio Summit produced conventions on climate change, biodiversity and forestry; recommended Agenda 21 as a development blueprint; established a consensus on sustainable development (growth with ecological responsibility); and exposed the unresolved North-South divide, with critics noting Agenda 21's tilt towards growth over conservation.

Concept used. The global commons are those areas and resources of the world that lie outside the sovereign jurisdiction of any one state and so require common governance by the international community. They are known in law as res communis humanitatis. The question has two parts: define them, then explain how they are misused. Answer both.

What the global commons are. They include four main areas:

• the Earth's atmosphere;
• Antarctica;
• the ocean floor; and
• outer space.

No single country owns these; they belong to humanity in common, like a shared "common room" or a community park belongs to all its members.

How they are exploited and polluted.

1. The atmosphere. It has been polluted by greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances, producing global warming and the ozone hole over Antarctica (discovered in the mid-1980s), which endangers ecosystems and human health.
2. Antarctica. Even the limited activities allowed since 1959, scientific research, fishing and tourism, have degraded parts of the region through waste, including damage caused by oil spills.
3. The ocean floor and the oceans. Coastal waters are increasingly polluted, largely by land-based human activity, harming the marine environment.
4. Outer space. Its use as a global commons is shaped by North-South inequalities, because the benefits of activity in space depend on advanced technology and industry, which the rich nations command. The gains are far from equal for present or future generations.

The deeper difficulty. A central problem is the trouble in reaching consensus on common environmental agendas, often on the basis of vague scientific evidence and uncertain time frames. The richer North and poorer South disagree on who should bear the cost of protecting these shared spaces.

The global commons are areas outside any state's sovereign control, needing common governance: the atmosphere, Antarctica, the ocean floor and outer space. They are exploited and polluted by greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances (atmosphere), waste and oil spills (Antarctica), land-based coastal pollution (oceans) and unequal, technology-driven use (outer space), worsened by the difficulty of agreeing common rules across the North-South divide.

Concept used. Common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) is the principle, accepted in the Rio Declaration of 1992, that all states share a common duty to protect the environment, but that this duty is differentiated, that is, shared unequally, because the developed countries have caused most of the historical damage. The question has two parts: explain the principle, then suggest how to put it into practice.

What the principle means.

1. A shared but unequal duty. Because states have contributed differently to global environmental degradation, they have common but differentiated responsibilities. The duty to protect the Earth's ecosystem is shared by all, but the share is not the same for everyone.
2. The North did most of the damage. The largest part of the historical and current emissions of greenhouse gases has come from the developed countries of the North, which industrialised first. Having caused more degradation, they must bear more of the responsibility for undoing it.
3. The South must not be held back. The developing countries of the South are still industrialising and their per-capita emissions remain low. They should not face the same restrictions as the developed countries, and their special needs must be taken into account. This is why China, India and other developing countries were exempted from the emission targets of the Kyoto Protocol.

How the idea could be implemented.

• Set binding emission-cut targets for developed countries, as the Kyoto Protocol (1997) did, while exempting developing countries that are still industrialising.
• Have the rich nations transfer finance and clean technology on easy (concessional) terms to poorer nations, so they can grow with less pollution, a demand India has repeatedly stressed.
• Let developing countries treat economic and social development as their first and overriding priority, in line with the UNFCCC.
• Encourage every country to adopt cleaner policies suited to its level, for example India's cleaner-fuel rules, energy-conservation and renewable-energy laws.

Common but differentiated responsibilities means all states share the duty to protect the environment, but unequally: the developed North, which caused most past pollution, must do more, while the still-industrialising South faces lighter obligations. It can be implemented by binding targets and deeper cuts for the North, finance and clean-technology transfer to the South, priority for the South's development, and country-appropriate clean policies.

Concept used. This is a causes question set in time. You must explain why the 1990s in particular made the environment a top priority for states. Group the reasons: the scale of the damage, the landmark events of the period, and the political nature of the problem.

The main reasons the environment became a priority concern from the 1990s were:

1. Environmental damage had reached a dangerous, global level. By the 1990s the harm was pervasive: shrinking farmland and falling fertility, overgrazed grasslands, over-harvested fisheries, polluted and depleted water, large-scale deforestation, loss of biodiversity, the ozone hole and rising coastal pollution. The problem could no longer be ignored.
2. Landmark warnings and conferences. The 1987 Brundtland Report, Our Common Future, warned that the old patterns of economic growth were not sustainable. The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio then firmly consolidated the environment at the political level and brought it to the centre-stage of global politics. The UNEP and other agencies began holding international conferences and studies.
3. No single state could solve these problems. Most environmental problems cross borders: the atmosphere, the oceans and the climate are shared. Since no one government can address them alone, they had to become part of "world politics" and a matter for collective action.
4. They raise deeply political questions. Who causes the degradation? Who pays the price? Who must take corrective action? Who gets to use how much of the Earth's resources? These are questions about power, so states could not leave them aside.
5. The end of the Cold War freed up the agenda. With the superpower rivalry over by the early 1990s, there was more room in world politics for "new" issues like the environment to rise to the top.

Since the 1990s the environment became a priority because the damage had grown pervasive and dangerous; because landmark events (the 1987 Brundtland Report and the 1992 Earth Summit) put it at the centre of global politics; because these cross-border problems cannot be solved by any one state alone; because they raise sharp political questions of cause, cost and corrective action; and because the end of the Cold War made room for such new issues.

Concept used. To substantiate a statement means to support it with reasons and evidence. The claim is that saving the planet needs compromise (each side giving up something) and accommodation (each side making room for the other's needs). You must show why the North-South negotiations prove this, by laying out both positions and showing that only mutual give-and-take can work.

The two opposing positions.

1. The North's view. The developed countries want to discuss the environmental problem as it stands now and want everyone to be equally responsible for ecological conservation. They are mainly worried about ozone depletion and global warming.
2. The South's view. The developing countries argue that most of the ecological damage was caused by the industrial growth of the developed countries. If the North caused more damage, it should take more responsibility. The South is still industrialising and should not face the same restrictions; its special needs and its priority of development must be respected.

Why compromise and accommodation are essential.

1. Neither side can save the planet alone. The North cannot cut global emissions without the cooperation of large developing countries, and the South cannot grow cleanly without finance and technology from the North. Each needs the other, so a one-sided demand will fail.
2. Compromise already shaped the key agreements. The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, accepted at Rio in 1992, is itself a compromise: all states share the duty, but the North accepts a larger share. The Kyoto Protocol then exempted China, India and other developing countries from binding targets, an accommodation of the South's position.
3. Accommodation means meeting the South's real needs. Saving the Earth requires the developed countries to transfer financial resources and clean technology on easy terms, and to let developing countries treat development as their first and overriding priority. Without this accommodation, the South cannot meet its commitments.
4. Rigidity has stalled progress. A review of the Earth Summit agreements found little real progress on transferring funds and technology to developing nations. Where one side refuses to move, the negotiations stall, which is exactly why give-and-take is essential.

The statement holds. Saving the Earth needs compromise and accommodation because the North and South start from opposed positions, the North wanting equal responsibility, the South pointing to the North's historical damage, yet neither can succeed alone. The compromise of common but differentiated responsibilities, the Kyoto exemptions for developing countries, and the demand that the North fund and share clean technology all show that only mutual give-and-take, not rigid insistence, can protect the planet.

Concept used. The challenge described here is exactly what sustainable development means: combining economic growth with ecological responsibility, so that present needs are met without harming the ability of future generations to meet theirs. The question asks how this balance can be achieved, with examples. Give the broad approaches first, then concrete examples, especially from India.

How the balance can be achieved.

1. Adopt sustainable development as the goal. States should follow the consensus reached at Rio: grow the economy while protecting the environment, guided by the action plan of Agenda 21.
2. Apply common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries, which caused most past damage, should cut emissions most and help the developing world. The developing countries should be allowed to grow while gradually cleaning up, not held to the same restrictions.
3. Transfer clean technology and finance. Rich nations should give poorer nations financial resources and environmentally sound technology on easy terms, so that growth in the South can be cleaner from the start.
4. Switch to cleaner energy and fuels. States should move towards renewable energy, cleaner fuels and greater energy efficiency, reducing the pollution that growth would otherwise cause.
5. Cooperate through global agreements. States should honour and strengthen agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Climate Agreement, and act together, since environmental problems cross borders.

Examples, mainly from India.

• India's National Auto-fuel Policy mandates cleaner fuels for vehicles.
• The Energy Conservation Act, 2001 sets out steps to improve energy efficiency.
• The Electricity Act, 2003 encourages the use of renewable energy.
• India has been importing natural gas and adopting clean-coal technologies, and planned a National Mission on Biodiesel.
• India ratified the Kyoto Protocol (2002) and the Paris Climate Agreement (2 October 2016), and runs one of the world's largest renewable-energy programmes.

This is the challenge of sustainable development: growth with ecological responsibility. It can be achieved by following Agenda 21, applying common but differentiated responsibilities, transferring clean technology and finance to developing countries, switching to renewable energy and cleaner fuels, and cooperating through agreements like Kyoto and Paris. India shows the way through its Auto-fuel Policy, the Energy Conservation Act (2001), the Electricity Act (2003), clean-coal and biodiesel efforts, and a large renewable-energy programme.