Wanted: A global climate leader

Offence is the best defence is a common adage that is being skillfully deployed by the world’s so-called developed countries. After having ratified the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which clearly states that “the developed country parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof”, that necessary additional financial resources would be provided to the developing countries for any initiatives that they might undertake and that there is a need to follow the “precautionary” and “common but differentiated responsibilities” principles, the developed nations are running for cover on various pretexts. The most often used argument for inaction is that all efforts made by the developed countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases would be insufficient to address the problem if the developing countries do not participate in the effort. Undoubtedly so, if you take a longer term perspective. The issue today, however, is that historical emissions are a given. There is no ambiguity on this. Future emissions of developing countries, on the other side, are pliable and to a large extent a function of the actions undertaken by the developed world. As such, to hold action on undeniable historical responsibilities ransom to an uncertain future would be grossly wrong. Another argument that is gaining traction is the impact on industry in the developed world due to carbon leakages. The implementation of any regime that excludes major players in important industrial activities, it is feared, creates competitiveness concerns for CO2 intensive products that are traded internationally and face uneven greenhouse gas constraints. An International Energy Agency study on the competitiveness of the aluminium sector in the European Union showed no significant impact of CO2 prices, as there are several other factors, with larger weight, that influence competitiveness. In any case, it has never been argued that the transition to cleaner production and consumption would be costless (read painless) for the developed world. If it were, then the whole principle of historical responsibilities would not have been agreed upon. As such, to use this as a backdoor means to get developing countries to take on targets would, once again, be wrong. At the much-touted Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate Change such means were used to get developing countries to take on commitments. Todd Stern, the US special envoy on climate change, did clarify on his subsequent visit to India that we were expected to ‘merely’ commit to a lower carbon pathway for development that would not translate into an absolute reduction target. With at least a few developed countries clearly admitting that it is only the rest of the world that puts them on the pedestal of leadership, the mantle of which they are unwilling to shoulder, what role can developing countries, such as India, play? India, too, is in a unique position to express its willingness to step out of traditional mindsets and assert a more global leadership role that would be in line with its own rhetoric of being an emerging power. This does not mean that India should give up its principled stand on climate change that it has adopted thus far. But this stand need not be at odds with the commitment that it being asked to make on a reduced emissions growth trajectory. After over 50 years of planned growth — involving the development of both five year plans as well as 20 year perspective plans – India cannot justifiably say that it cannot define a “business-as-usual” (aspirational in our context, as we invariably do not meet our plan targets) growth path and aim for a cleaner, more efficient energy consumption path to meet the economic growth and development needs! This would be a damning indictment of our own abilities to implement the various policies and measures that India has already defined and is committing itself to. Part of the blame for this reticence on India’s part possibly lies on the developed world that has indicated that it would like to see India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) being treated as an international commitment that would be monitorable and verifiable. India needs to argue that if by this it is implied that the financial and technological resources that the developed countries provide to India toward meeting the objectives of NAPCC would need to be subjected to some degree of accountability, we would not be averse to it. This should be no different to the project specific clean development related mechanisms that are already in place — hopefully implementable in a much simplified manner. The issue of a lower emissions growth path over a baseline is an altogether different subject and needs to be delinked from NAPCC. Such a commitment from India would be subject to as much enforceability as the many commitments made by the developed countries, and reneged, since 1992.