UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Mission LiFE is conceptualised as a mass movement to encourage individuals and communities to adopt mindful and deliberate utilisation of resources. It aims to reduce wasteful consumption, promote sustainable habits and align everyday choices with environmental protection. By focusing on behaviour change, it links climate action with lifestyle, making every citizen a stakeholder in development that respects planetary limits. This approach integrates environmental responsibility into daily life rather than treating it as a separate technical domain. (NITI Aayog)

Option A:
This option correctly captures the central idea of Mission LiFE, which emphasises changing lifestyles and consumption patterns to reduce environmental footprints. It recognises that climate and environmental challenges are not only about technology and policy but also about how people live, consume and conserve. The focus is on positive, practical actions that ordinary people can take without sacrificing development aspirations.

Option B:
This option is incorrect because Mission LiFE is not about expanding fossil-fuel based thermal power; in fact, it encourages reduced dependence on carbon-intensive choices. Large thermal power projects may be part of the overall energy mix today, but they are not the focus of LiFE’s behavioural campaign. Linking LiFE only with thermal capacity would ignore its demand-side orientation.

Option C:
Direct cash transfers may be used in some welfare schemes, but LiFE is built around nudging and enabling sustainable behaviours rather than unconditional cash benefits. The initiative stresses awareness, community mobilisation and enabling green choices, not income support independent of environmental performance. Therefore, this description misses the programme’s core philosophy.

Option D:
Replacing environmental laws with purely voluntary corporate codes would weaken regulatory safeguards and is not the intent of LiFE. The initiative complements, rather than substitutes, environmental regulations by mobilising citizens and communities. Its emphasis is on shared responsibility and lifestyle shifts, not deregulation.

Mission LiFE identifies and celebrates “Pro Planet People” as those who consciously choose environment-friendly behaviours. These include actions such as saving energy and water, reducing single-use plastics and choosing sustainable mobility. By highlighting such individuals and communities, the initiative aims to create social norms that favour low-impact lifestyles and make sustainable choices aspirational. This people-centric framing links environmental protection directly to everyday development and well-being. (missionlife-moefcc.nic.in)

Option A:
This option is incorrect because the LiFE framework does not restrict the idea of Pro Planet People to government officials. While officials can also adopt sustainable lifestyles, the concept explicitly extends to all citizens, communities and organisations that practise environment-conscious behaviour. Limiting it to a narrow group would reduce the transformative potential of the movement.

Option B:
This option correctly reflects the LiFE idea that anyone, individually or collectively, can become a Pro Planet Person by adopting environment-friendly habits. It stresses that lifestyle choices—such as reducing waste, conserving resources and supporting sustainable products—are central to climate and environmental solutions. The term therefore recognises active practitioners of sustainable lifestyles, not just passive beneficiaries of policies.

Option C:
This option is wrong because it treats everyone as Pro Planet People irrespective of behaviour. LiFE, however, is about nudging and recognising specific sustainable practices, so the term carries a behavioural meaning. Calling all citizens Pro Planet People would dilute the incentive to actually change habits.

Option D:
Companies investing in renewables can contribute significantly to decarbonisation, but the LiFE concept of Pro Planet People is not limited to corporate investors. It focuses on lifestyle and consumption choices, not just on capital expenditure decisions. Therefore, restricting the term to such companies would be misleading.

The term “Pro Planet People” is used in Mission LiFE documents to recognise those who actively practice sustainable lifestyles. It includes choices such as saving energy and water, reducing single-use plastics and preferring public transport or non-motorised mobility. By celebrating such people, the initiative aims to create social norms that favour low-impact living and make green behaviour aspirational. (missionlife-moefcc.nic.in)

Option A:
This option is incorrect because LiFE explicitly extends the idea of Pro Planet People beyond government officials to all sections of society. Restricting it to officials would undermine the mass-movement character of the initiative.

Option B:
This option correctly reflects that any individual or community can become Pro Planet People through deliberate environment-friendly habits. It highlights the behavioural basis of the concept rather than institutional position or wealth.

Option C:
Companies investing in renewables contribute to mitigation, but the phrase is not limited to corporate investors; it is meant for lifestyle choices across society.

Option D:
Calling all citizens Pro Planet People irrespective of their actions removes the behavioural meaning of the term and weakens the incentive to change habits.

Mission LiFE is designed as a people-centric movement that nudges individuals and communities towards sustainable everyday choices. It emphasises reducing wasteful consumption of energy, water and materials, and encourages habits such as reuse, repair and sharing. By framing citizens as “Pro Planet People”, it links climate and environmental goals directly with development and well-being. (MyGov.in)

Option A:
This option correctly captures LiFE’s focus on lifestyle and behaviour change as a tool for climate action and sustainable development. It recognises that reducing wasteful consumption lowers environmental footprints without denying people a good quality of life.

Option B:
This option is incorrect because LiFE does not advocate expanding coal; instead, it seeks to reduce carbon-intensive consumption patterns that drive fossil fuel demand.

Option C:
Cash transfers are not the core instrument of LiFE; the initiative focuses on awareness, nudges and enabling green choices rather than general income support.

Option D:
Replacing environmental laws with voluntary corporate codes would weaken regulation, whereas LiFE is meant to complement, not substitute, formal environmental governance.