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: 73
 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: 74
 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]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]latest-news-updates/copenhagens-non-deal-by-sunita-narain-770.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Copenhagen's non-deal by Sunita Narain | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

Copenhagen's non-deal by Sunita Narain

Cutting emissions drastically is neither easy nor cheap, so the developed world is looking for scapegoats.

As you read this, a deal is possibly being signed at Copenhagen to save the world from climate change. But be very clear. The agreement which the world has waited for is not going to be either an effective deal or a fair deal to reduce emissions in the world. The reason is clear: The industrialised world needs to cut emissions drastically, and this is not easy or cheap. So, it is looking for easy answers and, most of all, in Copenhagen it is looking for ways to blame the failure of the conference on someone.

This is really the name of the Copenhagen game. No rich country is really keen to reduce its emissions, but it knows it has an important public constituency outside the door, which demands more from it. There is also huge global media interest. No country can afford to be seen as the naysayer. It must be a climate champion.

But the problem is that the gas is released in the atmosphere because of our needs for burning fossil fuels to fuel our economy. The agenda is to reinvent growth without pollution. This is easier said than done.

The facts are clear: We know emissions from two critical sectors — energy industry and transport — have increased big time in the industrialised world, in spite of all the promises and commitments. Their use of energy is, as yet, on a runaway track. Forget about the reduction .

If we look at the various options countries have to cut emissions, there are three broad categories — based on what these will cost and availability of technology. The first category includes those things that countries can and should do because they will cost little or even if the initial capital cost is high, the pay back is quick — negative-cost options. These include everything nice from changing incandescent light bulbs to CFL or LED, to tightening standards for appliances we use in homes, to retrofitting homes to make sure they are insulated and, of course, all other actions to improve efficiency in industry and transport.

The actions, which will cost less than $30 (Rs 1,500) per tonne of carbon saved category are largely found in the land-related sectors — from stopping deforestation to planting trees to absorb carbon dioxide. But the third set of actions, which is really the ones that can reinvent the energy system and combat climate change comes also with a big ticket price — anywhere between $50-150 (Rs 4,000-7,000) per tonne of carbon saved. These include solar energy systems, very high penetration of wind, nuclear, retrofitting and building all coal-based power plants with a still experimental technology of carbon capture and storage (literally meaning to take the emitted carbon dioxide and storing it deep underground).

As yet, for the past 20-odd years of the climate negotiations — from Rio to Copenhagen — the rich world has looked for small answers to this big problem. First, it believed that the magic bullet was to plant biofuels — crops that could fuel the world. It learnt quickly that there was a trade-off in this business as cost of food skyrocketed. The next techno-fix was to improve the fuel economy of each vehicle, till it found that even as cars became more efficient, people ended up buying more and driving more. The end result was the same. Emissions increased. Now it is banking on hybrids. It refuses to learn that the scale of transition will need more than just an efficiency revolution. It will need a sufficiency goal.

This is why Copenhagen is struggling today to find answers for a climate deal. The rich world does not want to take on legally binding emission reductions. It would like to shift the burden on developing countries. So, China and India become its favourite targets. The fact is that these countries will emit more in the future. There is no way around it. They have growing populations and poor people. They need to provide for development for all.

The climate challenge is evident: The developing countries have the right to pollute. But there is no space left in the atmosphere for their emissions. Industrialised countries have disproportionately used up the space. So, what happens now? Do they merely give up their right to the ecological space, by taking on burden for emission control now? Or do they continue to demand that they should be compensated, through finances and technology, for the space they will not use? This is really the question on the table. They are not asking for their right to pollute, but their right to development.