Doubt Clearance Thread: UPSC 2021
"When in doubt, observe and ask questions. When certain, observe at length and ask many more questions."
Created this thread as a one stop solution for all members so that all the doubts wherein any conceptual clarification is required can be solved here.
@AzadHindFauz also western up Punjab and haryana are in a continous zone dominated by rice and wheat post green Revolution ( which increased its property)
More like cause-effect linkage.
But in official site of wii india it is not given...
Do you have any idea@AzadHindFauz @dragon_rider ?
Amangarh is the buffer zone of Corbett, but fell in UP after bifurcation. It was notified as a TR in 2012 and is listed on ENVIS by name, but in the same item as Corbett.
Regarding Hydrogen Fuel Cells - A lot of sources mention them as zero GHG tech.
1.But given the fact that they emit water vapour - shouldn't the case be that they emit GHG, but not harmful GHG's?
2.Also, isn't it the case that only pure hydrogen fuel cells wouldn't emit harmful GHG's? And others would
Regarding Hydrogen Fuel Cells - A lot of sources mention them as zero GHG tech.
1.But given the fact that they emit water vapour - shouldn't the case be that they emit GHG, but not harmful GHG's?
2.Also, isn't it the case that only pure hydrogen fuel cells wouldn't emit harmful GHG's? And others would
The concern is the GHG that stays in the atmosphere for a longer period and their cumulative addition further keeps amplifying the effect of warming.
Water vapour, although the most abundant GHG, is the part of hydrological cycle and stays in the atmosphere for a few days, months or so, unlike carbon-based compounds that stay for 100+ years.
2. Yes, only pure hydrogen fuel would be zero-emission fuel in real sense. Biofuels, Compressed Bio gas etc. are all GHG emitting fuels, but their effect is net zero emissions. That is to say whatever carbon stock is captured from the atmosphere is released back when we burn them as biofuel. Hence, they are being preferred.
@AlexanderSupertramp principled distance model( u can read about rajeev bhargava)i too would have marked all three in ivc ques..art 17 is absolute..btw can you share pdf if available?
yes, but the question was talking about fundamental rights in general. Toh usme toh they are not absolute as a whole.
@AlexanderSupertramp principled distance model( u can read about rajeev bhargava)i too would have marked all three in ivc ques..art 17 is absolute..btw can you share pdf if available?
yes, but the question was talking about fundamental rights in general. Toh usme toh they are not absolute as a whole.
no,the question has put forth 3 statements which are true in general, and has asked which of those statements are applicable to art 17.
Is it just me or shankar's yesterday's test actually wasn't up to the mark?
It's correct. The answer will be none of the above.
Article 17 can be amended by the Parliament. There's no bar. In case of emergency, only 20,21 cannot be suspended in any case. The enforcement of Article 17 is suspended in such a scenario. So, it's not absolute.
It's also applicable against individuals. Further, it is not self-executory because the Article clearly states that a law to that effect must be made defining it as an offence for the said purpose.
chamomile,
Is it just me or shankar's yesterday's test actually wasn't up to the mark?
It's correct. The answer will be none of the above.
Article 17 can be amended by the Parliament. There's no bar. In case of emergency, only 20,21 cannot be suspended in any case. The enforcement of Article 17 is suspended in such a scenario. So, it's not absolute.
It's also applicable against individuals. Further, it is not self-executory because the Article clearly states that a law to that effect must be made defining it as an offence for the said purpose.
thanks for clarification but doesnt absolute here imply absence of power to take away the aforementioned fr? can parliament take away protection against untouchability?
@AlexanderSupertramp principled distance model( u can read about rajeev bhargava)i too would have marked all three in ivc ques..art 17 is absolute..btw can you share pdf if available?
yes, but the question was talking about fundamental rights in general. Toh usme toh they are not absolute as a whole.
no,the question has put forth 3 statements which are true in general, and has asked which of those statements are applicable to art 17.
read the last sentence of the question just now. How ignorant of me!
Sorry for the trouble!
Write your comment…
