The new alliance, with India as a 'deal-maker', will do little to cut emissions to anywhere near the desired levels
Sunita Narain / New Delhi Oct 23, 2009, 00:27 IST
The new alliance, with India as a 'deal-maker', will do little to cut emissions to anywhere near the desired levels.
As the clock ticks to Copenhagen, how low is the world prepared to prostrate to get climate-renegade US on board? Is a bad deal in Copenhagen better than no deal?
The US’ intentions are not good for the climate. It has proposed that it will not take international commitments but will follow a domestic legislation route. So, it will act on targets legislated nationally. Indeed, the amount it will cut is nowhere close to what is required of it. The global consensus is industrialised countries need to cut at least 40 per cent over 1990 levels, to avert a 2°C rise in temperature. But the US, after much fanfare on its Nobel-awarded president, has proposed a puny target of 20 per cent of 2005 levels by 2020. Now, this country’s greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 20 per cent between 1990 and 2005. Thus, it is saying it plans to do nothing but stabilise by 2020. It does nothing to cut its gargantuan emission share—with some 5 per cent of the world’s population, it currently emits 18 per cent of global emissions. This single country is responsible for 30 per cent of the global stock of emissions in the atmosphere — this is criminal, when you think of the impact of climate change on the poor of the world.
Interestingly, this puny target includes a huge amount of emission credits it will ‘buy’ from developing countries as offsets. In sum, it will actually continue to increase its emissions till 2017, at the very least. Finally, it has made it amply clear it will do this little bit only if China, India and other ‘polluting’ nations are with it in this grand cop-out plan.
In other words, the world now needs a second coalition of the willing — this time for President Barack Obama. This time, not to go to war with Iraq, but to blow up the chance of an effective agreement in Copenhagen.
The generals are putting together the coalition, building block by building block.
One, the influential Harvard Kennedy School’s proposal for a ‘portfolio of domestic commitments’ is gaining traction in the coalition-world. It sets out a Track-2 option for climate agreements, built not on international targets and time-tables, but on a portfolio of actions which will be domestically legislated. Nations will then be asked to ‘honour’ these actions as international ‘commitments’; such voluntary actions will be internationally reviewed. In short, no red-phrase such as ‘legally binding commitments’ will exist, but only, as the authors say, a “flexible and politically palatable approach” to an international agreement.
Two, there is the Australian proposal on a legal architecture for the post-2012 climate regime, submitted at the October Bangkok meet. Australia is a country whose carbon dioxide emissions have increased by a whopping 40 per cent from 1990 to now. It is a loyal soldier of this coalition. The proposal is ingenious: The world should move towards a single agreement (read: dump Kyoto Protocol), based on “unifying commitments of all parties” (read: all together on one page). Simple. All countries (other than LDCs) have a national schedule, which forms the basis of international agreement. The national schedule is based on domestic action or legislation (note the link to the US-Harvard position). But all national actions will be internationally scrutinised.
The Australian proposal kills two birds with one stone. It gets rid of the Kyoto Protocol, with its uncomfortable distinction between the world and the Annex 1 nations, industrialised countries with high historical and current emissions who have to take action first. It also gets the US on board. President Barack Obama can now come to Copenhagen and be the climate hero. He will have ‘earned’ his Nobel prize.
Now, all they need to complete this coalition is to split the G-77 and bring one big dissenting country on board. Who other than India?
The international media has been ‘worked’ to build a strong campaign to play on our worst fears—being isolated and hated in a rich man’s world. An image has been crafted: India is the climate renegade. India has not got the climate narrative right. She is the naysayer, a deal-breaker. Anathema to our whitewashed politicians, who crave for global attention and approval.
But if we want to be part of the coalition, we must agree to their proposal. It is here we must spot the similarities between the ‘leaked’ letter of the minister of environment and forests to the prime minister, which asks for domestic legislation, international scrutiny on our mitigation actions, which we have to do for our own good and support for the Australian proposal. If we accept this proposition, we will be the deal-makers. We will break ranks with the G-77/China bloc and join the gang of the powerful polluters.
Will this ‘pragmatic’ approach to bring the world’s most renegade nation to the table be effective for climate change? Unequivocally, no. It will dismantle a multilateral agreement based on setting global targets to reduce emissions, equitable burden-sharing and strong mechanisms for the most powerful to comply. Worse, it will do little to cut emissions on the scale needed. The US is unwilling and the rest will now follow. Ineffective. Iniquitous. Bad for the world, worse for us.
This coalition of the willing has many powerful takers. In the days to come, the chorus will grow. Watch and wait. Hear and listen. The world is moving towards climate-disaster, and no Nobel Peace prize can cover that up.
part-II
-------------
Further, there is a devious side to per capita level argument put forth by India. In effect the upper classes in India woule be capitalsing on vast levels of poverty in India. As it is there are powerful and vested interests to keep people deprived, uneducated and poor. Any money received due to climate negotiation effort is unlikely to percolate to poor. Instead it is preferable for India to participate in technology development and receive widespread investments via Carbon offset transfer marktes.
The greenhouse gas emission are a product of development. More cars you use, more energy you consume per capita leads to more emission. Climate control in its essence boils down to enabling development and higher consumption in G-77 nations without impairing climate.This needs that all net increases in future everywhere are regulated and current emission rates are curtailed by improved design and processes while phasing out older ones. It makes more sense to set continually higher global standards by periodic review for the whole gamut of technologies and processes emitting GHG. The investments for continual improvement is likely to come along the lines of Carbon tax initiative taken by EU, thereby creating a sustainable market for greener technologies.
Sunita Narain has laid out an impressive case against all the developed nations. That is her forte. It would have been even stronger if India's emission output and other stats had been detailed out.
One cannot but help feeling a bit uneasy though...it is well known that she has an ideological axe to grind at times.... Has that colored this? We shall see
India should not compromise on it's national interest. India should not agree to anything unless the U.S. and other developed countries commit themselves. First they make a mess and then when the mess is out of control they call upon countries like ours to clear up the mess.
Just to add that the US House of Representatives' approved target of cutting emissions by 17 per cent by 2020 below 2005 levels effectively keeps the emission levels at 1990 levels (only 0.4 per cent less than 1990 levels!) as the greenhouse gas emissions in the US increased by 20 per cent between 1990 and 2005. This is simple mathematics of elementary level. Great progress is being made indeed in greenhouse gas emissions in 30 years from 1990 to 2020!
India has a huge population. So first India must cut its emissions. Otherwise how will others. Action is better talk. Just think of India's ancient culture. How badly we have deviated.
Very wonderfully explained the India's stand. India is never a deal breaker but it is just trying to ask more commitments from US. From the day before the US election Mr. Obama has only done promises. The promises indeed earned him a Noble award.
But is this ethically correct Mr. Obama? Where are the actions of your green energy, low emissions and making the world a better place to live? Are these only "promises are made to be broken". If Obama's promises are only to satisfy his personal fame then he is literally giving us a DARK future ahead.
It has been clear through the last decade that it is the US that is playing spoilsport in climate negotiations. The Australia protocol is just a way of pretending that the US is concerned about climate, but the developing countries are not. International agreements like the Kyoto Protocol cannot just be junked - they have to be honored.
Content Guide
