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]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | The eager beaver at Cancun by Nitin Sethi

The eager beaver at Cancun by Nitin Sethi

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Dec 17, 2010   modified Modified on Dec 17, 2010

Have the Cancun Agreements set Kyoto Protocol on a path to eventual death? No. Killing Kyoto would require a 2/3rd vote by the 180-plus member countries. There is too much guilt involved in that. But the Agreements have prepared the ground to render the Protocol hollow and meaningless - left to survive a vegetative, inconsequential life even as a new and unequal global regime takes ground.

The Kyoto Protocol was agreed to on a historical premise and the need for making emission targets under it stronger, built on a scientific one. The developed countries had for more than a century occupied the atmospheric space – and therefore the space for economic development – far beyond their equitable share. Kyoto set them emission reduction targets to diminish their hold on the atmosphere and give the developing countries the space to grow out of poverty.

The need for stronger targets for the rich countries came with science showing that there was very little atmospheric capacity left to absorb more greenhouse gases and the rich countries had to take deeper cuts. Science showed the crisis was so deep that even after the rich countries took these deep cuts, the developing countries would have to pay in advance for their future acts – take steps to slow the growth of their future emissions.

In 2007 at Bali, the developing world agreed to shoulder some responsibility and take voluntary actions to reduce their future emissions if the rich world enabled them with finance and technology. In 2009 at Copenhagen, the developing world accepted that they would not wait for the funds or technology to come from the reluctant rich countries. Now at Cancun, India has said it is willing to turn its voluntary domestic actions into international commitments.

In contrast, over the same period, the developed countries at Bali indicated they would be willing to discuss Kyoto's future if the developing countries too were willing to consider new responsibilities. Then they took a step back and demanded developing countries must act first before Kyoto is even discussed. In Cancun, they simply refused to discuss the protocol but India was all too eager to make commitments regardless.

If Kyoto Protocol's second commitment period had been agreed to, the following would have happened. All the rich countries, except for the US, would have undertaken deeper emission cuts (25-40% from 1990 levels). These countries would have kept the pressure on the US to also take comparable deep cuts under a new deal (US's stubborn refusal to accept Kyoto has become acceptable anyway). India and other large economies would have decided, based on their economic capacities, what actions they can take voluntarily to reduce their future emissions.

Instead, this is what happened at Cancun. India helped broker a climate agreement where the developed countries got away with not taking commitments under Kyoto's second phase. Instead of demanding that developed countries commit to targets, the Cancun Agreements used the language of pleading – "urging" them to raise their targets, and, list whatever targets they desire, on non-binding documents for information sake.

Oddly, even as the rich countries were left off the hook, India agreed to inscribe its relative emission reductions on the same documents, taking on similar levels of international scrutiny. Effectively it ripped the differentiation between the historical emitters and the poor countries. Now everyone would need to only make voluntary pledges. Lip service was paid to climate science but the Cancun Agreements contained no strict provision to monitor and evaluate if the voluntary pledges of the rich countries are adequate enough to prevent dangerous climate change.

Environment minister Jairam Ramesh went one step ahead and committed that India was willing to turn its voluntary actions into binding international commitments. While the rich world was shirking its commitments India became the eager beaver to take on the rich man's burden.

Nothing wrong in being seen doing more than one's fair share to save the planet. But when the rich world was ready to live without regard for the planet or science, India forsook its earlier stance. That taking on commitments would shave off its economic growth. That it had a large number of poor which continued to live below global poverty levels without electricity and taking on emission reduction commitments would increase the cost of delivering power to the homes of the 400 million living without it at the moment. That it would reduce the resources at its disposal to elevate the poor out of darkness. That it required the atmospheric space to develop economically. That it had contributed only 2.2% of the global cumulative emissions while countries were way above (US contributed 29.3% and EU 26.5%) and that the burden must be in proportion to the contribution. That the rich countries needed to vacate the
atmospheric space, permitting it and other poor countries to reach a level of economic health that it too could shift on to the substantially costlier clean technologies. That it would take actions to reduce its future emissions but at a pace it could bear the costs of. That it would retain the flexibility to amend these actions – upgrade or reduce the effort – based on the health of its economy.

The sudden shift in stance, explained by the minister as merely "nuancing", will entail costs that will continue long after the dust has settled at Cancun.

Short-term green market economics apart, the potential strain on development is a worry.

It was and remains well known that emission reduction efforts lead to increased costs of fossil fuels – coal and oil – both are the mainstay of Indian economy at the moment. Jairam Ramesh proposed the change to India's stance at the cabinet meeting just before Cancun. The UPA cabinet accepted his proposal. At Cancun, he announced the change in India's stance to the world. But the government is yet to explain to the country how India's economic conditions have changed to dramatically in two years that it can consider an inflexible international commitment, regardless of costs. They are yet to inform the country on why the government has decided to shun all its previous studies advising against such a move and offer itself for inflexible commitments. It is yet to explain why India is now prepared for an unequal world.

India came back from Cancun with its negotiating space crunched and prepared to forsake its atmospheric space. It gave away too many cards too soon for too little.

Everyone who has been part of the climate talks will admit off the record that in due time, as India's emissions increase, it will need to take on binding commitments of some nature. That it had to use its negotiating space to buy that time for the country's development even as it demanded reparation from the rich world to adapt to the inevitable climate change.

Keeping Kyoto alive and keeping the pressure on the rich countries was part of that strategic economic interest embedded in the climate talks. Instead, India has now agreed to the Cancun Agreements that push it faster towards a new regime where its commitments increase while that of the rich world reduces.

The Times of India, 17 December, 2010, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/The-eager-beaver-at-Cancun/articleshow/7115142.cms

Tagged with: climate change



Related Articles

 

Write Comments

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

*

Video Archives

Archives

Im4Change.org हिंदी वेबसाइट का परिचय. Short Video on im4change.org...

Im4Change.org हिंदी वेबसाइट का परिचय. Short Video on im4change.org...

"Session 1: Scope of IDEA and AgriStack" in Exploring...

"Session 2: Farmer Centric Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...

"Session 3: Future of Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...

Objectives | About Us | Workshops | Disclaimer
share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close