The Durban summit on climate change has managed to come out with a deftly-crafted package that not only accommodates, albeit in part, the viewpoints of most key negotiators, but also ensures that the fight against global warming will continue. But it falls short of delivering a concrete successor to the existing Kyoto protocol on climate change, even though a time schedule and management framework have been worked out for negotiating a new deal to replace it. There may not be any obvious winners or losers at the end of this meeting — but developing countries, including India, certainly had to give more than they got. The final package tilts the balance in favour of historical polluters, which have, in effect, succeeded in compelling developing countries to agree to targeted emission cuts from 2020 onwards.
Though India made a passionate last-minute plea for space for development, it finally agreed to discuss emission reduction targets for all countries under a new deal to be finalised by 2015. All it got in return was the concession that “equity” be a basis for a future agenda. Yet equity was certainly thrown rudely out of the window when any distinction between the developed and developing countries was done away with in setting up a successor to the Kyoto protocol. In short, India has wound up with less than it could have expected — and lost leadership of the developing-world bloc. This is thanks essentially to its wavering, thoughtless stances at the past few climate summits. Its willingness at Copenhagen to give up on targeted emission slashing had alienated India from the developing world, denting its credibility. But an even more important contributor to India’s sub-optimal result was its ill-founded decision to bracket itself with China — which emits four times as much per capita as does India, and uses far more energy for every unit of output. China is the world’s biggest emitter, and there is little doubt that it would have to accept some restrictions under a global agreement. This by no means necessarily applies to India. Thus, by chasing the chimera of a China-India alliance, India has allowed itself to become subject to rules developed for a much richer – and more polluting – economy.
Now that the text of the Kyoto pact is going to be reopened, albeit against India’s wishes, the government must revisit its strategy for future talks. The objective should be to focus squarely on measurable yardsticks that determine when an economy is developed, and when it is developing — and the corresponding target emissions. These yardsticks could include per capita emissions or poverty ratios; but they should ensure that the West’s understandable concern that the world’s biggest emitter be constrained does not end up hobbling India’s right to develop. The lack of maturity and consistency from New Delhi has led to India having to abandon differentiated responsibility, and has cut into its space to grow. These mistakes cannot be made again.
