Sheikh Hasina addresses party rally last year (Photo: Delwar Hossain/ Wikimedia Commons)
The protests, initially led by students demanding reforms in the quota system in government jobs, took a violent turn in the last weeks of July
Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina resigned and left the country, army chief General Waker-Uz-Zaman announced during an address to the nation in the afternoon of Monday, August 5.
The Army chief also claimed to have taken full responsibility over the government, promising that an interim government would be formed soon after consulting all the opposition parties. He also appealed to the protesters to end their demonstrations with a hope that the violence would stop.
Waker-Uz-Zaman promised that he will make sure that all persons responsible for the killing of protesters are held accountable for their acts.
Despite the announcement of Hasina leaving the country, demonstrations continued throughout the day in Bangladesh. There were reports of Hasina’s former official residence being stormed and Dhaka’s international airport being shut down in the afternoon.
Protesters reportedly blocked roads at different places in the country, vandalized the statue of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, considered the founder of the nation, as well as the offices of Hasina’s Awami League. Attacks were also carried out against the offices of various other parties, and continued into the evening.
Over 300 people, including security personnel, have been killed and thousands of others have been injured in the protests so far.
The protests in the country have been ongoing for over a month now. The first weeks of the protests saw university students demand reforms in the quota system in the recruitment in government jobs, and were largely peaceful. Protests turned violent after they were allegedly attacked by members of the ruling Awami League Party under the cover of security in the third week of July.
Amid the intensification of the protests, the Hasina government called for all universities to be shut down, imposed a curfew and a communication blockade. A shoot on sight order was also issued to the army deployed to control the violence.
Over 200 people were killed and thousands were injured in clashes between the security forces and protesters in the following week of July.
On July 21, the country’s Supreme Court scrapped most of the quota, fulfilling the central demand of the protesters. Yet, the protests continued with growing demands for action against the perpetrators of the violence and against the government itself.
The second round of protests erupted on Sunday, August 3, with thousands gathered in different major cities in the country calling for Hasina to resign. Chittagong, one of the major centers of quota reform protests witnessed the hundred of thousands of people flooding the streets, waving national flags and shouting slogans against Hasina.
Over 100 people, including over a dozen security personnel, have been killed in Sunday’s protests.
Hasina’s government and her Awami League party had alleged that the violent protests were initiated as a part of a conspiracy against the elected government. Hasina had accused the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) of collaborating with Jamaat-e-Islami, an extremist group, to provoke violence across the country in order to bring regime change in the country as they could not win popular elections.
According to a source on the ground, the violence during the quota reform movement was used by the imperialist powers led by the US to orchestrate regime change in the country. They also claimed that the new regime would be used to undo the secular and progressive reforms initiated by the Hasina government during her four terms.
In January’s national elections in Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina had won her fourth straight term as prime minister since 2009. This was her fifth term as prime minister in total. She was first elected as prime minister in 1996. The US had questioned the legitimacy of the last elections in January.
Brinda Karat, CPI (M) polit bureau member speaking in the press conference in New Delhi on Thursday, August 1
Left parties will observe a day of solidarity with Palestine on August 3 to pressure the Indian government to stop sending weapons to Israel and to end the genocide
Five left parties in India issued a joint call, asking the Indian government to stop supplying weapons to Israel, and demanding immediate comprehensive international sanctions over its continued violations of international law and the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. Similar calls were made by civil society groups as well.
The parties include the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Communist Party of India (CPI), the Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP), Forward Bloc, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation, issued a joint call for a nationwide protest mobilization on August 3, in solidarity with the Palestinian people.
Apart from calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and creation of a Palestinian state on pre-1967 borders, the left parties demanded Israel be declared an apartheid state, and denounced Israel’s continued defiance of UN resolutions, existing international laws and the rulings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
“In the light of brazen violations of UN resolutions, the ICJ rulings against the genocide by Israel in Gaza and the escalation of such genocide against the people of Palestine,” the left parties call upon “Indian people to express their solidarity with the Palestinian people and against the genocide and atrocities being carried out by Israel backed by the United State of America” the text of the joint call reads.
The left parties also demanded that the government of India “cancel all export licenses and permissions to various Indian companies for the supply of military arms and ammunition to Israel, and halt all arms imports from Israel” and “end all forms of complicity with Israel’s illegal military occupation and genocide [which is] based on the principles of colonial apartheid.”
Speaking in a press conference organized by civil society groups on Thursday in New Delhi, Brinda Karat, a CPI (M) polit bureau member said that, “our deep and abiding solidarity for Palestinian freedom requires us to hold our own government accountable for actions which help the perpetrators of the continuing barbaric horrors against the children, the people of Palestine.”
Speaking in the press conference, economist and right to food activist Jean Dreze accused the Indian government of complicity in genocide and starvation of Palestinians, by refusing to stop cooperation with the Zionist state and by refusing to press Israel to stop its war in Gaza.
Almost 40,000 Palestinians have been killed and over 90,000 injured so far in the Israeli genocide on Gazam which began on October 7 of last year.
Stop aiding Israeli genocide in Gaza!
Several prominent figures, including former judges of the Supreme Court of India, scholars and activists wrote a joint letter to India’s defense minister Rajnath Singh on Wednesday, asking the country to immediately halt all supplies of weapons to Israel, claiming it violates India’s obligations to international laws and its own constitutional provisions.
Quoting media reports about Spain not allowing the docking of at least two ships allegedly carrying military equipment from India to Israel in recent months, as well as labels of “made in India” found on some of the missiles dropped by Israel in Gaza, the civil society members claimed in a press conference on Thursday that the Narendra Modi-led government of India has forgotten its own commitments to the Genocide Convention and other international laws, and even failed to implement its historical positions on the Palestinian issue.
The joint letter to India’s defense minister provides evidence of how at least three Indian companies are manufacturing missile parts and Hermes drones, which are used by Israel to launch attacks inside civilian areas in Gaza.
“Any supply of military material to Israel would amount to a violation of India’s obligations under international humanitarian law and the mandate of Article 21 read with Article 51 (c) of the Indian constitution. We urge you, therefore, to cancel the concerned export licenses and halt the granting of any new licenses to companies supplying military equipment to Israel,” the joint letter reads.
India’s billions of dollars of arms trade with Israel contradicts its own stated positions of “peaceful resolution in Palestine” and its voting patterns on successive UN resolutions most of which support an immediate ceasefire and the creation of a Palestinian state on the occupied territories, various speakers said in the press conference on Thursday.
Speakers, including Karat, demanded that the Indian government should stop trying to be a beneficiary of the Israeli occupation and stop indulging in opportunistic practices, such as sending its workforce to replace Palestinians in Israel.
Last year, the Indian government agreed to send workers to replace thousands of Palestinians whose work permits were canceled by Israel after the beginning of the war on October 7.
Siddharth Varadarajan, editor of the Wire, said that India’s policy on supporting Israel during the war goes against the Modi government’s stated position of preserving Indian interests, as Israeli acts such as the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Iran earlier this week could result in the eruption of regional warm which can force around 5 million Indians working in the Gulf countries to return home.
Lawyer Prashant Bhusan, and prominent writer Arundhati Roy, also underlined that any clandestine deal between India and Israel violates India’s democratic principles and its historic commitments to anti-colonial struggles around the world.
Cutting emissions from buildings and transport across the UK could yield billions of pounds in economic “co-benefits”, leaving people healthier and better off, a new study finds.
The research calculates that meeting sectoral climate targets out to 2037 could result in at least £164bn worth of benefits in six UK urban centres, from Belfast to Manchester.
The UK-wide figure is likely to be far higher, say the authors, because this analysis only covers a handful of regions and does not account for all the co-benefits, including the impact cutting emissions would have on climate change.
Some right-leaning politicians and media outlets like to claim that the UK’s net-zero policies should be abandoned due to “excessive” costs. This has led to many inaccurate claims about the “cost of net-zero”.
Yet officialanalysis for the UK government has repeatedly concluded that the lower costs of running clean technologies and cutting reliance on fossil fuels will likely save money, offsetting much of the upfront investment costs.
The new study, published in the Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, argues that while such running cost savings are significant, they are dwarfed by the “social benefits” of net-zero. These include the economic benefits of improved air quality, less congested roads and warmer homes.
The researchers calculate that around four-fifths of the economic gains from cutting building and transport emissions over the next decade will be social benefits. This is mostly due to fewer people driving cars, with far-reaching consequences for everyone’s health.
‘Cost’ of net-zero
Climate sceptics and some right-leaning politicians have seized on the “cost of net-zero” as an argument to weaken climate policies or abandon the target altogether.
This rhetoric cut through when the previous Conservative government rolled back core climate targets, citing the burden on “hard-pressed British families”.
The recent election saw both the Conservatives and Reform UK spreading misleading messages about the cost of net-zero. Typically, they chose to ignore the cost of business-as-usual, plus cited costs but not benefits or omitted the costs of failing to tackle climate change.
Achieving the UK target of net-zero emissions by 2050 will require significant investment in low-carbon infrastructure. Government advisors at the Climate Change Committee (CCC) place the figure at £50bn a year by 2030 – mostly delivered by the private sector.
Yet the CCC and others have also stressed that these numbers do not account for the financial benefits of net-zero. Ultimately, the lower costs of driving electric cars, heating well-insulated homes and cutting reliance on gas are expected to save people money, offsetting most of the cost of net-zero investments.
But even this is only part of the story. Moving to a low-carbon economy is also set to bring all sorts of other benefits, including cleaner air, less traffic and improved health.
These “co-benefits” of climate action have been “side-lined in many economic analyses”, according to the new study. This is partly because it is hard to place a value on things that lack data, are difficult to quantify or vary depending on location and context.
Amid pushback against net-zero, the paper argues that it is essential to quantify these co-benefits. Study co-author Ruaidhrí Higgins-Lavery, a senior carbon analyst at the Edinburgh Climate Change Institute, tells Carbon Brief:
“At the end of the day, we need to decarbonise – we have a legal commitment – and the way we do that will have massive implications across economic and social barriers…If you incorporate co-benefits into the decision-making process, we can have a more balanced deployment of measures.”
Among Higgins-Lavery’s six co-authors, two have affiliations at the consultancy PwC and two at the consultancy Your Climate Strategy. The latter describes its focus as “designing and delivering ambitious climate strategies” for local authorities, businesses and other organisations.
Case for action
The study focuses on six major urban regions – three in England, one in Scotland, one in Wales and one in Northern Ireland – which are home to 13% of the UK population. They are Belfast, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Glasgow, Greater Manchester and Liverpool.
It assesses policies that would allow the UK to meet “sixth carbon budget” targets for transport and buildings in these areas, out to 2037. (The CCC says nearly half of the emissions reductions required over this period will need to come from these two sectors.)
The analysis covers around 750 measures that would collectively help curb emissions by the sixth carbon budget target of 78% by 2035, compared to 1990 levels.
In total, the researchers find that this programme of action for achieving the sixth carbon budget would generate £179bn in total benefits in these regions. Accounting for investment costs, this amounts to £164bn in net benefits.
These benefits are made up of three components. First, the researchers use “best-practice UK government methods” – including the Treasury’s own “green book” – to assess the financial costs and benefits of investing in low-carbon homes and transport.
Their assessment finds that the investment required to electrify transport, build charging stations and replace gas boilers with heat pumps is significantly offset by the energy savings and lower costs of running these technologies.
Overall, the analysis concludes that these regions would need to invest £14.5bn, but would save £23.2bn – meaning a saving of £8.7bn over this period.
Second, the researchers assess the “carbon case for action” by converting the emissions savings from policy interventions into monetary values.
They use the UK’s own “carbon value” calculations, which are the costs the government says are associated with cutting a tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2), and are used to gauge the impact of climate policies. This results in savings of £13.6bn.
However, while the financial and carbon benefits are substantial, the study concludes that £142bn – or 79% of the total benefits – are “social”.
In order to arrive at this figure, the team uses a range of well-established methods to convert everything from warmer homes to reduced traffic accidents into monetary values.
The chart below shows how the social benefits of the transport and building policies set out in the new study far exceed the investment needs over the sixth carbon budget period. It also shows that social benefits are significantly larger than financial and carbon benefits.
Annual monetised financial, carbon and social benefits of climate actions by benefit type, and capital costs, £bn, in the transport and building sectors across six UK regions. Source: Sudmant et al. (2024). Chart by Carbon Brief.
Higgins-Lavery notes that while they attempted to be as comprehensive as possible, the team’s calculation of total benefits is likely an underestimate. This is because many major benefits that could arise from cutting emissions, including avoided harm to food supplies and lower heat stress, were “beyond the scope” of their analysis.
Cutting cars
The study concludes that by far the biggest co-benefits come from reducing the number of cars on the roads. Instead, people would depend more on public transport, walking and cycling.
The resulting dip in congestion and increase in physical activity accounts for 86% of the social benefits identified. Among other things, cities would see lower healthcare costs due to fewer car accidents, less air pollution and fitter populations.
The researchers note that their estimate of per-capita health improvements resulting from transport sector policies is between four and 13 times higher than previous studies.
This is largely due to their optimistic estimates of how much people will choose to walk or cycle. The authors defend this assumption on the basis that it is still lower than the active transport rates seen in the Netherlands and Denmark, and similar to those seen in Paris.
Higgins-Lavery tells Carbon Brief that all of this highlights the importance of different policy decisions made on the path to net-zero:
“If we don’t prioritise things like active travel – if we instead prioritise switching to electric vehicles – we could miss out on a lot of social benefits.”
As it stands, the UK’s highest-profile net-zero transport policies have focused on electric cars. The government has a target to deliver a “world-class cycling and walking network in England by 2040”, but this has been hampered by years of underinvestment.
Citing this as a key example, Higgins-Lavery and his colleagues write that co-benefits are “significantly affected by value-based decisions” made during the policymaking process.
With this in mind, they call for organisations such as the CCC to be clearer about the assumptions that inform their advice to the government.
(The research group’s work will inform the CCC”s upcoming seventh carbon budget, which will include an assessment of “non-monetary benefits and costs”.)
‘Lopsided picture’
Overall, the authors argue that accounting for co-benefits can help to make the economic case for net-zero and “overcome ideological barriers” to climate action.
Prof Sam Fankhauser, a climate change economist at the University of Oxford who was not involved in the new study, welcomes the new paper. He tells Carbon Brief:
“Most net-zero cost studies acknowledge [co-benefits], but don’t actually quantify them. This produces a lopsided picture since the qualitatively assessed benefits get forgotten and the focus is on the hard cost numbers.”
He notes that focusing on transport and buildings alone means the authors “chose sectors where the indirect benefits of action are particularly pronounced”, compared to other sectors such as power and industry.
However, Fankhauser says this is “swings and roundabouts”, considering that, for example, the direct costs of decarbonising buildings are higher than for the power sector.
Dom Boyle, study co-author and director of net-zero policy and economics at the consultancy PwC, notes that the public is “not particularly aware” of the co-benefits of net-zero. He tells Carbon Brief:
“There has been a reticence from previous governments to communicate these benefits to the public, which has not been matched by the relish the right-wing press show in communicating the dis-benefits.”
This is despite the CCC estimate that nearly two-thirds of the emissions cuts required to meet the UK’s net-zero target will depend on individual choices and behaviours.
“It is far more accurate to talk about the multiple benefits of smart policies that address the great environmental crises, and these should be central to any cost-benefit analysis.”
