Do we need a new Copenhagen plan?

A big polluter like China comes across as wanting to curb greenhouse gas emissions. India has a GHG-plan but unless this is tabled, we come across as spoilers’

The issue of whether India should change its position on climate change is largely academic. In reality, India’s climate change position has already undergone progressive transformation with the establishment of the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council on Climate Change and its formulation of the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC). The overview of the NAPCC clearly states, “our approach must be compatible with our role as a responsible and enlightened member of the international community, ready to make our contribution to the solution of a global challenge, which impacts on humanity as a whole”. The NAPCC includes eight separate missions, the very first being the solar energy mission, with plans to set up approximately 20,000 Mw of solar capacity by 2020. This is clearly a deviation from business as usual, because India has promoted only coal-based thermal or hydro power on this scale. It is significant that the NAPCC has huge benefits for India itself while contributing to the solution of a global problem. One major objective of this National Action Plan is to attain energy security. On the basis of a detailed modeling exercise carried out by The Energy and Resource Institute (Teri), we can project that on a business-as-usual basis, India would be importing 750 million tonnes (mt) of oil by the year 2031 and 1,400 mt of coal. We as a nation would, therefore, be very vulnerable to increases in prices of oil as well as coal. Were there to be a sharp increase in oil prices, such as that over a year ago when they reached $147 per barrel, the Indian economy would get battered severely. In some respects, therefore, the NAPCC should be seen as making a virtue of necessity. Against this reality, unfortunately, our postures in the international arena have been misplaced. Indeed, China with almost four times our levels of per capita emissions has been effective in projecting itself as constructive and helpful in limiting GHG emissions, while India through obstinate posturing and often intemperate words in the negotiations has acquired the image of a spoiler. India, therefore, should take early steps to earn some praise particularly for the NAPCC, which represents a serious attempt on our part to assume a responsible and constructive role.

Another reason for a change in posture can be justified on the basis of scenarios 20 years hence. If the global community does nothing, projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) clearly indicate several serious impacts of climate change, including sea-level rise, which could threaten the existence of a number of small island states and low-lying coastal areas such as Bangladesh. At that stage, countries that suffer from serious impacts of climate change — as we would too — will list India as one of the nations responsible for the disaster suffered by the most vulnerable and poorest nations of the world. Already, a number of small island states and vulnerable nations in Africa look at India as part of the problem and not of the solution.

It, therefore, makes eminent sense — particularly if India is serious about implementing its NAPCC — to proclaim from the rooftops that this plan reflects India’s commitment to limiting GHG emissions. As an open democratic society, India should have no hesitation or fear from making its own actions transparent to the global community, subject to endorsement and scrutiny by Parliament. Of course, in keeping with the “common but differentiated responsibility” clause of the UNFCCC, India should commit itself internationally only if developed countries meet their obligations in all respects, clearly specifying this as a pre-condition.

India has a deep stake in a strong agreement in Copenhagen not only as a global citizen, but also because the impacts of climate change would affect us seriously. A good agreement in Copenhagen would be important for all developing countries, particularly the least developed and the most vulnerable. By pledging the NAPCC as our global contribution, India would earn respect from these nations and achieve a strong position to bargain for major financing of mitigation and adaptation actions in the developing world.

Finally, India should place the NAPCC on the table in ongoing global negotiations. The benefit from such a position for a country aspiring to permanent membership of the Security Council would be far greater than any perceived losses.