Climate For Development

After hectic parleys, cat-and-mouse negotiations and much burning of midnight oil, the Conference of Parties (CoP21) - more popularly known as the climate conference - came to a successful end on December 12th. "Successful" in the sense of reaching an agreement. Many felt, though, that the compromises made in reaching an agreed text entailed too many sacrifices. One important example hinges on the change of just one word. Often considered synonyms, the substitution of "should" in place of "shall" has radically altered the responsibility cast on developed nations, by saying that they should (rather than shall) undertake absolute emission reduction targets.

One of the issues that engendered much debate is the target for limiting global warming. A 0.5° C difference seems hardly noticeable to us, and not one worth losing much sleep over. Yet, the small increase in global warming, from 1.5 degrees to 2 (compared to pre-industrial times) can mean a sea-level rise of more than 1 metre, leading to huge submergence in countries like Bangladesh (and serious effect on India's coastal cities). Some of the small island States fear that they may disappear altogether.

Research indicates that limiting the rise to 1.5° would require far more action. While the difference in the glide paths between 1.5 and 2° is not very large for the next 15 years, after 2030 the more ambitious target would need far most stringent action. It requires that by 2050, the world emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent should be no more than 8 gigatonnes, whereas for a 2° limit this can be up to 23 gigatonnes.

India was under great pressure regarding its use of coal, which remains the cheapest fuel source, despite the advances - and advantages - of renewables like solar and wind energy. Also, it is abundantly available in the country, unlike oil and gas. However, coal-based power is a major emitter of carbon dioxide, and the agreement has wording that could inhibit the flow of foreign funds into coal-based power plants.

It is important to note that past emissions, which have led to the present global crisis, have overwhelmingly come from developed countries. This historical responsibility cannot be wished away. It is for this reason - and not altruism or financial capability - that the developing countries have insisted on the responsibility of the developed world to bank-roll the proposed $100 billion a year fund, which is to kick in from 2020. This is one element of the principle of "common but differentiated responsibility", which many feel has been diluted.

While much of the incremental future emissions of greenhouse gases will be by China and India, the actual figures for the present depict a startling picture. A study by Oxfam shows that the richest 10% people of the world (living preponderantly in developed countries) are responsible for almost half of all global carbon emissions while the poorest 50% cause just 10% of it. The latter emit 1.57 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year per person (the figure for India is just 0.42 tonnes), while a person from the richest 10% emits 17.6 tonnes! Overall, the figure for India is 0.73 and for the US it is 16.43 tonnes per capita per year (on the more appropriate basis of consumption).

This emphasizes the need for lifestyle changes. If, in future, the whole world were to adopt US lifestyles, catastrophic environmental disaster is guaranteed. Yet, the US has for long been unwilling to face up to the need to change its wasteful practices by - for example - raising taxes on large cars or on fuel or on polluters. Not just sustainability, but survival itself requires the world to act together. While India and other developing countries need to do their bit, there is a special responsibility on the developed countries to provide technology and funds for a greener world, even as they need to change their wasteful life-styles. As Gandhi said, "the world has enough for everyone's needs, but not everyone's greed".