As the dates for the UN Conference on Climate Change at Copenhagen in December this year get closer, there is little room for optimism that the world would have come up with an acceptable plan for adopting technologies and models of sustainable economic development that have at their heart the curbing of emission of greenhouse gases which have placed the planet’s climate at serious risk.
Ahead of the coming Copenhagen summit on climate change, at the July meeting of the G-8, industrialized nations and the G-5 at L-Aquila in Italy, all the countries had agreed on a consensus document on climate change. It did not, however, fix any goal for the developing countries for the reduction of greenhouse gases by 2050. This was a significant achievement on the part of the developing countries since their economic development would have slowed down had there been a fixed target. They, however, declared their “political will for reaching a comprehensive, fair, effective, agreed outcome, following the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities at the Copenhagen summit”.
The expression “different responsibilities” is significant. India and China have maintained that the industrialized countries had “historical responsibilities” in the matter of containing the emission of greenhouse gases because they have been the biggest polluters since the Industrial Revolution. According to the World Resource Institute in America, India produces only 18 tons of emission per person, compared to 22 tonns per person in the US. In terms of absolute emission levels, India’s position is fifth in the list of major polluting countries after China, the US, the EU and Russia.
“Unlike his predecessor, President Obama has called climate change “a defining issue” of our time.”
The recent findings of a UN agency, the World Economic and Social Survey Report 2009, suggest that the rich countries are yet to undertake commitments that would meaningfully help ward off climate change. The good news, however, is that the US under President Barack Obama is on board as a participant in climate change talks, unlike at Kyoto. Any major investments in green technologies worldwide will be impossible to effect if the world’s most significant economic and political power keeps away from these confabulations. Unlike his predecessor, President Obama has called climate change “a defining issue” of our time. The science is “clear and convincing” on this, he has rightly noted. But the good news seems to end here. Several meetings this year to prepare for Copenhagen have not yielded much by way of an acceptable formula that should guide action to roll back the monster of climate change. The key issues revolve around concerted steps to be taken by the advanced industrialised nations to cut carbon dioxide emissions and to encourage fast-paced economies in the developing world — such as India and China — to switch to technologies and energy sources that minimise or reduce the noxious emissions. The transfer of resources to developing countries to alter their current technology-energy matrix is naturally a key issue at debate as these countries, even if they tried hard, can’t find the needed resources unaided.
The earth’s temperatures began to rise ominously with the rapid industrialisation seen in Western Europe and North America from about 1900, and the situation got worse after 1950. If the broad aim is to restrict the temperature increase to less than two per cent of that which obtained in pre-industrial times, all countries must do what is necessary. The report cited above emphasises that the industrialised countries must make deep cuts in their CO2 emissions if the climate change agreement at Copenhagen is to be equitable. Indeed, by the year 2050, they are required to ensure that they will emit 100 per cent less than what they did in 1990. Instead of appreciating this, the rich countries appear bent on passing the burden of re-greening the earth on the poorer countries by asking them to accept quotas for capping their CO2 emissions. The latter are naturally reluctant and will fight back as this means compromising on economic development since alternative green technologies for industrial advancement are not quite available yet. India has an important role to play here. Per capita, India’s emission of CO2 is less than one tonne, while that of the US, to take an example, is 20 tonnes. This clearly spells out the basic issue — that the rich countries must agree to do a lot more than they are inclined to at present. India, of course, must seek to come as close as practicable to its own domestic action plan goal of producing 20,000 megawatts of solar energy by 2020. While it cannot accept internationally ordained caps on its CO2 emissions, it must seek the satisfaction of contributing to arresting the dynamics of climate change. But so must the rich countries accept the responsibility of the doubling of investment in energy infrastructure from the existing $500 billion to $1 trillion by 2030. If some of these necessary steps are not taken, we shall be running on the spot.
