Concerned that India might abandon its per capita stance in the debate on equity in the global carbon space, key members of the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change have sought a debate in Parliament before taking any decision.
Indications that this core position might change have come from statements made by Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh. Speaking to the media at the Delhi Sustainable Development Summit on February 7, Ramesh had said: “Per capita is one option.” He also had said that economist Arvind Subramanian had been commissioned to undertake a study on the various options available.
The study, he said, would be completed by the end of April. And it would take into account the work of other economists such as Jeffrey Sachs, Michael Spence and Jeffrey Frankel. Ramesh had then said India would host an international workshop in May to discuss other options and come up with a formula to ensure fair burden-sharing in the reduction of future greenhouse gas emissions.
The fact that India has roped in US academics for the study has itself raised concerns. Views of some of these economists are known to favour the industrialised world as they call for binding emission cuts from countries like China and India.
One of India’s lead negotiators at Copenhagen and member of the PM’s council on climate change, C Dasgupta, said he was “disturbed” at some moves to question the basic principles of the negotiations. “The per capita approach is about equity. It implies that every inhabitant of this planet has an equal right. Every average Indian has an equal right,” he said.
The sudden departure of the Prime Minister’s special envoy on climate change, Shyam Saran, has deepened apprehensions that India’s core position is about to change. Saran had expressed his misgivings earlier to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the direction Ramesh was taking. Per capita, so far, has formed the core of the Indian stance on climate change, with Singh himself stressing this position at several international forums.
Dasgupta said if there was a departure from the basic policy stand, he would have little interest in continuing with his role in climate change discussions. “Why should there be an international conference to discuss anational agenda?” he questioned.
Another lead negotiator, Prodipto Ghosh, agreed: “These are issues that should be publicly debated.” The issue was to be considered at the level of policy and not personalities, he said, referring to Saran’s resignation.
Dasgupta also said individuals and personalities were inconsequential. The concern was about the main issue and the undermining of the policy. “Climate change policy cannot be the responsibility of one department. Consequences of any such decision would be borne by Indian people.”
So far, India’s stand has been that while it may have the fifth-largest annual emissions in the world in gross terms, when divided by the huge population and considered in per capita terms, it falls to the 120th ranking. India has promised to never exceed the per capita emission figures of the developed countries, while reserving the right to increase gross emissions as the economy grows.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has made per capita convergence (of the developed and developing world) the Indian climate change policy’s underlying principle, saying, while India’s emissions would grow, they would never cross the per capita levels of the rich world.
Predictably, there is pressure to change this core position. And any such change would be to the detriment of India’s poor, say experts. However, indications are that this stance may change. “Those who have contributed most to the stock (industrialised nations) are not those who will contribute most to the flow... that is, India, China, Brazil, South Africa,” Ramesh pointed out at the summit. India plans to have its formula ready before the next UN climate change negotiations in May at Bonn.
