Editorials/Opinions Analysis For UPSC 27 November 2025
Content China’s JUNO vs India’s INO Fighting the fire China’s JUNO vs India’s INO Why is it in News? China has completed construction of the Jiangmen Underground Neutrino Observatory (JUNO) in 2025 and released its first scientific performance papers (Nov 18). Meanwhile, India’s India-based Neutrino Observatory (INO) has remained stalled for over a decade, despite being conceptualised earlier than JUNO. JUNO has now begun reporting precision measurements (θ₁₂), while INO is stuck due to environmental, political and procedural hurdles. Relevance GS2 – Governance Centre–State coordination failures. Environmental clearance regime. Public communication in scientific projects. Political economy of large scientific infrastructure. GS3 – Science & Technology Indigenous high-energy physics capability. Impact of delays on global scientific standing. Role of Big Science in technology development (detectors, PMTs, computing). Practice Question Examine the reasons for the prolonged delay of the India-based Neutrino Observatory (INO). Discuss its implications for India’s scientific progress in comparison with China’s JUNO project. Suggest governance reforms necessary to execute Big Science projects in India.(250 Words) What are Neutrinos? Fundamental, charge-less subatomic particles. Three flavours: electron, muon, tau. Extremely weak interaction with matter → need massive detectors. Demonstrate neutrino oscillation, implying neutrinos have mass. Key unsolved puzzle: neutrino mass ordering (normal vs inverted hierarchy). Why big detectors? Probability of neutrino interaction ≈ 10⁻³⁸ cm² → need kiloton-scale materials and natural shielding (mountains, underground labs). INO: Original Vision Proposed: 50-kilotonne magnetised iron calorimeter detector (ICAL) in Theni, Tamil Nadu. Mountain overburden was to provide 1 km rock shielding. Science goal: determine neutrino mass hierarchy using atmospheric neutrinos. Built by a national consortium led by TIFR, IMSc, BARC, etc. Estimated cost ~ ₹1,500–1,800 crore. Why INO Stalled? A. Environmental & Local Opposition Fear of “radioactivity” due to DAE involvement. Concerns: blasting, tunnelling, impact on water aquifers, wildlife. Project misunderstood as a “nuclear waste” facility. B. Procedural lapses (documented in hindsight) Delayed environmental clearances. Inadequate early-stage local consultations. Insufficient risk communication strategy. Underestimation of political sensitivities. C. Governance & Federal Challenges Tamil Nadu govt withdrawal → land transfer issues. Litigation in Madras HC and NGT. Repeated demands for fresh EIA. D. Strategic Timing International collaborations hesitated due to uncertain timelines. Competing projects (like JUNO) moved rapidly. JUNO: China’s Rise in Big Science Key Features Location: Jiangmen, Guangdong. Liquid scintillator detector: 20,000 tonnes. Light sensors: ~18,000 large PMTs, among the world’s most advanced. Depth: ~700 m rock overburden. Budget: ~$300 million. Progress Expected completion: 2020 → delayed to 2025 but eventually built. Released two major preprints in Nov 2025: Initial performance results (detector calibration, resolution). Precision measurement of θ₁₂ (consistent with global data). Internationality Authors from ~20 countries; no Indian scientists present, despite India’s long expertise. Scientific Significance Neutrino Oscillations Measured via mixing angles: θ₁₂, θ₁₃, θ₂₃. θ₁₃ measured earlier by Daya Bay (China), Double Chooz (France), and RENO (Korea). JUNO aims to determine: Neutrino mass ordering Precision tests of 3-flavour oscillation framework Search for new physics beyond Standard Model. INO’s Niche INO’s magnetised detector would uniquely measure: Charge identification of muon neutrinos. Better sensitivity to mass hierarchy via Earth’s matter effects. Comparison INO vs JUNO Scientific Capability JUNO Strength: ultra-high energy resolution. Goal: precise θ₁₂, mass hierarchy, new physics. INO Strength: magnetic field → charge discrimination. Unique capability no other detector globally offers. Funding & Governance JUNO: Strong state backing, integrated planning, political support. INO: Multi-level approvals, state-centre friction, litigation. Stakeholder Management JUNO: Strong early community engagement. Clear communication on safety. INO: Miscommunication → public mistrust. Project framed wrongly as “nuclear”. Timelines JUNO: ~12 years (2013–2025). INO: Proposed 2005; still pending. Why India’s Absence in JUNO’s Author List Matters ? India has a historic record: 1965: India detected atmospheric neutrinos first at Kolar Gold Fields. Strong theoretical groups (IMSc, TIFR). Absence indicates: Funding instability → foreign collaborations hesitate. Administrative delays reducing India’s global credibility. Missed opportunity in two frontier areas: neutrinos & lunar samples. Key Lessons A. Big Science ≠ Only Scientists Need: Political buy-in. Local cooperation. Clearances done correctly. Strong communication strategy. Stable multi-year funding. B. Delays Reduce Strategic Leverage Frontier science moves fast. If India misses one window, the next requires much more advanced capabilities. C. “Resource constraints” often administrative, not material India invests heavily in: LIGO-India (~₹2,600 crore) SKA participation Large telescope collaborations So neutrino science didn’t fail due to money alone. Fighting the fire Why is it in News? COP30 concluded in Belém, Brazil, marking 10 years since the 2015 Paris Agreement. Global temperatures in 2024 crossed the 1.5°C threshold for the first time, raising urgency. Brazil attempted to shift the narrative from pledges → implementation. Strong focus on adaptation, just transition, and multilateral cooperation, amid geopolitical fragmentation. India participated actively but did not update its NDCs. Relevance GS2 – IR Multilateral climate diplomacy Negotiation politics North–South divide GS3 – Environment Climate science basics Paris Agreement NDC framework Adaptation vs mitigation Just transition Loss & damage finance GS1 – Geography Amazon ecosystem, global warming patterns. Practice Question COP30 attempts to shift climate negotiations from ambition to implementation. Critically analyse the opportunities and constraints for such a shift.(250 Words) What is COP? Conference of Parties (COP): Annual meeting of 198 Parties to the UNFCCC to negotiate climate action. Mandates include: Setting global climate goals Developing rules for mitigation, adaptation, finance Negotiating equity and burden-sharing. Paris Agreement (2015) — Foundations Global temperature goal: Limit rise to well below 2°C. Preferably 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Every country submits Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Principles: CBDR–RC (Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities) Progressive ambition: NDCs must be enhanced every 5 years. Climate finance obligation on developed nations. Why 2024–25 Is a Turning Point ? 2024 is the first year global temperatures breached 1.5°C (not yet the “new normal”, but a warning). Emissions trends show → world on track for ~2.5–2.9°C warming by 2100. Extreme events (heat, floods, forest fires, Amazon dieback threat) intensifying. Hardening of global climate blocs: Developed bloc: push for fossil fuel phase-out deadlines. Developing/petro-states: equity, finance, development space. Why Belém (Amazon) Matters ? Symbolic choice: Amazon = world’s largest carbon sink; experiencing severe deforestation, drought, fires. Brazil wants to position itself as leader of the Global South and Amazon protection diplomacy. What COP30 Tried to Change — “Implementation COP” Shift from promises → action After a decade of lofty pledges, real progress on ground remains poor. Brazil pushed: Implementation frameworks Accountability mechanisms Cooperative multilateralism (“mutirão”). Key Themes A. Adaptation Recognises that warming impacts are already unavoidable. Focus areas: Resilient agriculture Climate-proofing infrastructure Coastal protection Heatwave management Adaptation finance post-2025. B. Just Transition Addresses social and economic disruptions from energy shifts. Protecting: Workers Marginalised groups Indigenous communities Ensures sustainability does not worsen inequality. C. Finance Renewed push but no solid commitments. USD 100 bn/year obligation still not fully met. Developing countries asked for: Grant-based finance Loss & damage support Technology access. India’s Role Vocal leader of developing countries (G77 + China positions). Welcomed focus on equity, adaptation, just transition. Did not update its NDCs, citing: Finance uncertainty Development priorities Already overachieving several 2030 targets (renewable capacity, emissions intensity). Continues opposition to: Forced fossil fuel phase-out One-size-fits-all mitigation roadmaps. Outcomes — Gains and Shortfalls Gains Adaptation and just transition elevated. Acknowledged Amazon protection significance. Renewed commitment to multilateralism. Stronger narrative on equity. Shortfalls No consensus on fossil fuel phase-out vs phase-down. Finance gaps remain unaddressed. Absence of the U.S. diluted negotiation power on mitigation. Incremental progress compared to the scale of crisis. Broader Implications Climate denialism, pollution, deforestation rising despite COP efforts. Global stocktake suggests current policies insufficient. COP process remains slow, but still the only multilateral forum capable of collective climate action.