Understanding the climate change talks - Durban 2011
/ 8
Climate change, the science behind the phenomenon, and its impact on our world has been debated and discussed in global seminars, conferences, inter governmental forums and parliaments. Whilst in some other democracies the policy makers and constituents are aware and actively follow the issue, the average Indian voter seems to be unaffected. I have had to educate myself on some of the core questions at hand and infact struggle to keep abreast of the latest stance of governments and experts. I will attempt to create a document that makes some sense to you and I hope some more informed minds take note of any factual infirmities and unhesitatingly give their opinions!
India went into the Climate talks this year with its agenda spelled out by our Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan as EQUITY, TRADE and INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. To understand these concepts one needs to look into the history of climate negotiations and the stands of important international players. (Read her speech at Durban here)
In the 1992 climate talks at Rio de Janeiro it was established that the atmosphere is shared equally among all. Till then major emitters were the developed nations, as they had used massive amount of fossil fuels to spur their industrial development. To make space for growth of developing countries like the members of BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China), developed nations would have to put a cap on there emission levels to make space for increased emissions from these nations. Many think tanks and climate change analysts have talked about the fact that India and China now have high emission levels and should be held with the same standards as developed nations. Per capita emission in India has increased from 0.8 (metric tonnes) in 1990 to 1.5 in 2008. However, in developed countries like the US and the EU the per capita emission change has been from 19.5 to 17.9 and 8.7 to 7.8 respectively. This figures tell us that the US and EU have per capita emissions in almost 18 and 8 times that of India. Considering the already high per capita emission in developed countries this has been an important argument for the Indian Climate Negotiators. (Trends in Per Capita Emission here) The stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has a long life. This means that any discussion on how the carbon cake will be divided, must take into account those gases emitted in the past and still present. So while China accounts for 27 per cent of the annual emissions presently, in cumulative terms (since 1950) it still accounts for only 11 per cent. Similarly, India contributes 6 per cent to the annual global emissions, but is only responsible for 3 per cent of the stock (from the past). The rich countries, with less than a quarter of the world’s population, are responsible for some 70 per cent of this historical burden. So what does India mean when it talks about equity? (Read Environmental Activist Sunita Naraian's view on equity here)
The concept of equity comes from the Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR). In fighting climate change, there are common responsibilities all States should accept due to the common resource of environment, which we share. The responsibility is differentiated because of the variations in the economic, social and technological levels of States. Under this notion, because developed nations have a higher capability they should lead the fight against climate change. The famous Kyoto Protocol, the only legally binding international climate treaty is based on CBDR. Kyoto Protocol, states that the Annex 1 (developed countries) should reduce their overall emissions of Green House Gases (GHG) by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012 (UNFCCC). The developing countries are under no such obligations. The 5% reduction is a differentiated responsibility of all developed nations compared with developing nations. However, Kyoto Protocol was not adopted by the USA. Canada also withdrew from fulfilling its obligation. (Read about the Kyoto Protocol here. See the Kyoto Protocol Adoption Map here. Read about CBDR here)
The concepts of Trade and Intellectual Property deal with the sharing of green technology devised by Developed countries to countries like ours, for effectively curbing our emissions. However, developed countries are skeptical about sharing these scientific advances. In 2005, developed countries promised to transfer complex technologies to developing countries free of cost to cope up with climate change. But in 2009 at Copenhagen, they failed to commit to such transfers citing the problematic intellectual property rights regime. Technology transfer is a challenge because the system that has led to research and development of the emerging technologies is basically entrepreneurial in nature and based on putting a remunerative value to the efforts. But can markets decide? To me it seems similar to the Pharmaceuticals debate where companies and individuals may have profited from research and the IPR regime but essential drugs are still out of the reach for millions across the developing world. It is a moral dilemma, which puts several of our well accepted theories about globalization, economics and efficient capitalist markets to the test. More than 18 million human beings die each year from diseases we can prevent, cure, or treat. But the system that we have nurtured creates barriers for access to medicine for our poorer sections.
Because climate change has the potential to reduce the availability of food and water, threaten biodiversity, raise sea levels, and disrupt weather patterns, the potential outcomes of not acting as per a coordinated and equitable global strategy are catastrophic. We simply have to find the right balance for all to benefit from new technologies. Innovative mechanisms need to be developed to address the concerns of the dominant private entities engaged in research that would enable a sharing, cooperation or joint development of new technologies for adaptation and mitigation of climate change with the appropriate institutions in countries that need them the most today. The funds are also a matter of concern. The current turbulence in the economy and upheavals in several countries over the state of the domestic economy and cutbacks in spending necessitated by the debt crisis seems to have claimed the silent victim of the global climate change fund. The pledge by rich nations to provide $100 billion a year in climate cash by 2020 to a fund to be called Green Climate Fund to be administered by the World Bank seems an impossible mirage.
India is under pressure to accept legally binding emission cuts from the developed countries as well as from the most vulnerable developing nations (Island Nations). However, we have defined poverty eradication to be our top priority. But, I do not see this as justifying our country’s march down the high carbon growth strategy that other nation’s have historically pursued. If we don’t have the legacy, lets not create a new future based on waste and neglect. We have to rationally look at the true cost of carbon and evaluate alternate and green sources of energy in that light. Creating a sustainable energy mix that reflects our needs to aggressively ramp up access for our impoverished and fully utilizes our renewable generation potential is a challenge and an opportunity.
There's no point in denying it, international climate change talks, efforts over the last twenty years have not resulted in anything substantial. The domestic politics of the participating countries has at times overwhelmed the scientific views. The need for an effective climate treaty is imperative as the legitimacy of the Kyoto Protocol draws to a close. What did the Durban talks achieve? The Durban talks, known as COP17, were an incremental step forward. COP 17 simply got all the countries there to agree to be part of a future, legally binding agreement that will be defined by 2015 and go into effect in 2020. But this does represent some small progress from the Kyoto Protocol. With rising temperature, it is time that climate negotiators continue to work coolly and come up with mutually acceptable solutions for all parties hopefully by 2015.