Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
न्यूज क्लिपिंग्स् | Copenhagen: Time out by NK Singh

Copenhagen: Time out by NK Singh

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Dec 9, 2009   modified Modified on Dec 9, 2009

The Copenhagen summit on global warming and climate change has commenced. Instead of a leadership role, we will now be playing a followers’ role. We fell behind the emerging consensus curve. We held on for too long to outmoded positions of merely harping on per capita emission and common-differentiated obligation while disregarding many other significant factors. The recent decision of China, announcing a 40 per cent cut in its energy intensity, and similar action by other emerging economies cajoled us into announcing a 20-25 per cent reduction in emission based on 2005 data. The debate in the Lok Sabha, and earlier in the Rajya Sabha, in which I had participated, did represent a national recognition that flexibility was important and mere adherence to the per capita paradigm was inadequate. Further, that some pre-announcements were necessary as a baseline and as a signal that the Parliament in India was cognizant of the need to take advancing steps. Perhaps based on obligations which other nations acknowledge, we may have to make further accommodation, not to please any other country but in recognition of what is in our own national interest. Saying that business as usual has also resulted in emission intensity is to reassure ourselves that the obligations now under consideration are neither unduly onerous nor do they compromise our growth targets.

The science and economics of global warming and climate change have been extensively debated. Doubts on whether the Himalayan glaciers are receding are clearly misplaced. The consequences are disastrous in terms of initially rising water levels in our rivers and the subsequent shortage of water for agriculture and for drinking, volatility in rainfall patterns and the untimeliness and intensity of floods, cyclones and storms. Rising sea levels will need substantial relocation of coastal populations while falling agricultural productivity will alter the pattern of pastoral livelihood. The destruction of ozone because of soot and black carbon threatens to alter the process of photosynthesis which is fundamental for the survival of living species.

According to scientists, the per capita emission by 2030 needs to be around two tons of carbon dioxide as a global average. This implies that the developed countries must cut their emission by 90 per cent by 2050, with intermediate targets to be reached by 2020 and 2030. Developing countries would also need basic adjustments in economic activity patterns to limit their carbon emissions around two tons per capita of carbon dioxide. As economic activity in emerging markets gather momentum, keeping energy intensity at this desired level would be daunting. For a country like India, the current emission level may be well under two tons but sustained growth rates of eight to nine per cent will see a dramatic rise in per capita emission.

There are at least five key issues on which international consensus remains elusive.

(a) Mitigation — which implies reduction in carbon dioxide emission by different groups of actors in developed, developing and rapidly growing emerging markets, with late-comers and acceptance of emission caps in the agreed band with intermediate targets to reach an average of two-ton carbon dioxide emission by 2050.

So, who takes what responsibility by which date? And what is rational, appropriate and ethical given varied development compulsions?

(b) Adaptation — namely, a recognition that no matter what we do from now on the damage already done has irreversible consequences and the need to adopt country strategies for a transition which is socially least destructive.

(c) Issues of financing — namely, who pays and how much? Both for adaptation and mitigation, considering that the developed countries are the worst polluters, persuading them to bear the cost being incurred by the developing world presents complex challenges.

(d) Technology — namely, methods for advancing and distributing low carbon technologies to advance technological frontiers, and making them easily accessible for emerging markets at costs which are affordable.

(e) The issue of measurement, reporting and verification. Setting benchmarks and standards for measuring the success of mitigation and adaptation efforts and for subjecting them to internationally acceptable verifications is a sensitive issue both in terms of the science involved and the complexity of the process. It is also evident that the taxpayers in the developed world would be unwilling to finance mitigation and adaptation costs without reasonable assurance that the promised emission reductions have actually been achieved. Since a good bit of effort will come from the emerging markets themselves, naturally there would be a disinclination to subject domestic outcomes to international scrutiny.

The Indian position needs some fundamental rethinking:

First, historically, obligations have been defined in terms of per capita emission differentials. There is a moral sanctity behind this approach and it must remain an overarching pillar emanating from the simple principle that the polluters must pay. Nonetheless, we must realize that while we may not have contributed to the existing mass of polluting matter in the atmosphere, our surging pace of growth would result in rapidly adding to the flow of polluting matter. Existing technology paradigms suggest a relationship between growth and energy intensity; seeking alternatives is expensive and uncertain.

Second, voluntary action to reduce energy intensity is now becoming an acceptable norm. The Chinese have announced voluntary action and so have many other emerging markets, like Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia. Whether the Chinese action is adequate or not is debatable, but we cannot be left out in the cold, even as other important developing countries take a lead over us.

Third, the old mantra of common but differentiated responsibility may need a nuanced interpretation. Some emerging markets, particularly our neighbouring country, is now already the second-largest polluter and adding to its flow at a scorching pace. India and many other countries have a long way to go to come anywhere near this level. Defining obligation rigidly on the basis of a common differentiated principle as well as the distinction between Annex I Countries and Non Annex I Countries oversimplifies some inherent distortions.

Fourth, the “investment approach” to mitigation recognizes that there is a unique historical opportunity here to invest in infrastructure for low-carbon growth. There is nothing deterministic about the relationship between emissions and growth, or emissions and poverty reduction. So why not take steps to extract the most growth (and the most poverty reduction) from the emissions that India should be allowed to retain? Even if we claim a piece of the remaining emissions space, now that we know the consequences, it is our ethical duty and leadership responsibility to use it wisely and judiciously, like thinking about efficiency and emissions when building power plants or when investing in roads and public transport. These choices will have lasting consequences. India is at the point of locking into a particular growth trajectory. No reason not to make it lower-carbon.

Fifth, we must distinguish between who adjusts and who pays for this. The two need not be linked. Some things are easier to achieve in developing countries — like the investment approach to mitigation since there is room to leapfrog rather than having to retrofit existing infrastructure. These might be expensive, but India doing it does not necessarily mean that India has to pay for it. India could show leadership in imagination and innovation, and then bargain to have the rest of the world pay for it. This is an approach that will bring jobs, innovation, science, and funding. For India it could be a win-win situation.

International negotiations can- not be meaningfully conducted if everyone is wedded to fixed paradigms. Malleability of approach, without sacrificing paramount national interest, is the hallmark of any successful negotiation.

The heat is on the Copenhagen deal. The next few weeks will reveal if we have indeed played a leadership role.
 

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close