A dedicated department for energy-efficient cooling within the Bureau of Energy Efficiency could further accelerate change.
Not forgetting the most vulnerable
For vulnerable communities facing extreme heat, there remain very limited solutions. Their contribution to emissions is only a fraction of the total, yet they are often the ones who suffer the most from surging temperatures.
Most people in low-income settlements must rent. Because they don’t own their homes, they have no ability to change them, which means no ability to alter windows or doors and install ventilation systems to improve thermal comfort.
They also face cramped living conditions. In the greater Mumbai city of Mira Bhayandar, up to eight people often live in 150 to 200 square feet spaces – equivalent to a small studio apartment – with low ceilings. Fans may not provide enough relief in such circumstances, and many people end up going to gardens or sitting under trees to rest as indoor conditions become unbearable.
Parts of Tamil Nadu and Kerala have piloted the use of passive cooling measures such as coir roofing systems and cooling paint, with good results. But in large cities such as Mumbai, slums are densely populated, with houses built informally, meaning most retrofitting is a challenge. Homes in some slum areas have structurally weak roofs, for instance, making it difficult to implement any measures beyond lightweight additions.
Most low-income families also prioritise rent, food, education and healthcare. Heat-resilient housing upgrades naturally fall very low on their list because upfront costs are unaffordable, even if the benefits are clear.
Financing cannot be the responsibility of these households alone. The primary responsibility should lie with government and city authorities, supported by climate funds, development agencies and private sector partners. Implementation can happen through housing societies and community groups like bachat gats (microfinance self-help groups).
Importantly, vulnerable households do have agency. They are already adapting in small ways and are willing to invest when presented with affordable and trusted solutions.
For instance, in Mira Bhayandar, we saw that some people had put thermocol sheets – low-cost polystyrene panels – under their roofs to keep the heat out. And where interventions such as wood wool panel ceilings were installed, some households improved heat resilience further by adding LED lights, which emit less heat than older bulb types.
Clearly, communities are aware of heat-related issues and receptive to solutions, particularly when they are pragmatic and yield measurable benefits such as lower indoor temperatures and electricity bills. The use of these kinds of solutions can grow if more people know about them, can access them and can afford them.
And when communities can pool resources, access government incentives and clearly see the return on investment, upgrades become possible. What is needed is a financing system that is simple, accessible and designed around their realities. People respond to monetary benefits more than to technical jargon. Instead of emphasising carbon reductions in abstract terms, we must focus on practical outcomes: saving money and living better. That is what brings people on board.
This article was originally published on Dialogue Earth under a Creative Commons licence.
