Content

1. China’s JUNO vs India’s INO  
2. 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.