Society

Dump Thy SUVs

Yet again, the North-South divide dominates climate meet

Advertisement

Dump Thy SUVs
info_icon
T
info_icon



The UN conference on climate change (from December 3-14) is expected to review action taken by signatories to the Kyoto Protocol, a legally binding agreement to cut emission of greenhouse gases, which came into force in 2005. The US, the world's biggest polluter, never ratified Kyoto and the Europeans, who did, haven't fulfilled their commitments. As evidence mounts that the earth is warming and glaciers melting, while those with money and technology do little, there is an attempt to shift focus on India and China—the two fastest growing economies to undertake binding commitments to reduce emissions.

No way, says India. "India will not accept binding commitments (on reducing emissions). We can't barter away our future," an official said. "We owe it to our people. Besides, if we put a cap on our development, we wouldn't be able to cope with climate change." A slew of environment ministers from Europe—a continent in search of a leadership—has been filing through Delhi, trying to push India to compromise.

The British, while agreeing that the developed world must "carry the bulk of the burden", want India to look "beyond Kyoto". British High Commissioner Richard Stagg told Outlook, "We don't expect India to have targets at the moment but in the aftermath of Bali, a way must be found to collectively reach an agreement on how emission reductions are shared over time." Incidentally, UK's emissions went up between '03 and '04. Another European ambassador was more blunt when he said India and China must commit because they will be serious emitters in a decade. Besides, roping in the two countries would increase moral pressure on Washington to undertake commitments.

Using India to lure the US is a non-starter, say officials, because the Bush administration remains determined in its inaction on this most serious issue. Thus, India's message to the industrialised countries is: First clean up your act, abide by commitments made earlier and put the money where the problem is, before sounding the alarm against others. Few concrete efforts have been made to create funding mechanisms and clean technologies available to developing countries. "Innovators worry about you guys selling the technology to third countries and making profits," a European ambassador commented.

The much-talked about Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change produced by economist Nicholas Stern for the British government last year reveals the same shirking of real responsibility. Stern says that 1 per cent of global gdp per year needs to be invested to fight global warming to avoid the risk of global gdp going down by 20 per cent by the end of the century. Criticised by eminent economists on its numbers, the Stern Review glosses over the ethical questions. When questioned by Indian officials on a visit here, Stern admitted that the North is unlikely to allocate new money for technology. Developing countries are expected to work within existing aid packages or use their own resources to clean the mess. "His message was, 'Get real guys'," an official said. But if India were to shift resources, its growth trajectory would suffer.

In reality, India has already voluntarily committed to a lot. During the G-8 summit in Germany, Manmohan Singh declared India's per capita emissions of greenhouse gases would not exceed those of the developed countries even as the country continued to grow at 8-9 per cent. "This promise is already a challenge for us. We are not counting historical emissions," said Kirit Parikh, member of the Planning Commission. India's per capita emissions are among the lowest in the world—1.2 tonnes per year compared to 20.6 tonnes of the US and 19.6 tonnes of Canada. Even if India and other developing countries were to disappear from the face of the earth, the West would still have to reduce its emissions by 60 per cent, say officials.

Although India has taken several steps to fight global warming, the myth persists that it is among the major polluters. As always, public diplomacy on the issue is not in the gear it needs to be to fight the disinformation campaigns funded by big Western businesses and tacitly supported by governments. Instead of a defensive stance, talking mainly of "historic responsibilities", India's message can focus on steps already taken and the inherently sustainable lifestyle centred on local traditions and culture. India is growing at 8.9 per cent with an energy sector growth of only 2.76 per cent, showing the results of conservation efforts, officials said.

The 2001 Energy Conservation Act imposes an energy efficiency code for new commercial buildings, the 2003 Electricity Act mandates the use of renewable energy which already has made India the world's fourth largest wind power generator, the use of CNG, building of metro rails, starting a major bio-diesel programme and the world's largest afforestation project covering 6 million hectares are all significant steps.

But the real solution lies in drastically changing Western lifestyles. True, India's consuming classes must also think about driving small and less but a variety of unsustainable patterns of production in industrial countries must also change. Today's crisis is created by the stock of greenhouse gases built over the past 100 years due to industrialisation in the West. The 1992 Earth Summit, which produced the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, laid down the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities". That remains the bedrock of India's strategy.

Advertisement

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement