Sep
The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference 2009 is a world meeting of nations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The purpose of the meet is to
arrive at a consensus regarding various issues related to Climate Change and put together a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, which runs out in 2012. The main issue which the conference will deal with is the capping of carbon emissions. Agreeing upon who caps emissions at what levels has been a bone of contention, and has pitched the developed nations against emerging economies like India and China.
To quote directly from the official website of the Conference, the 4 areas on which an agreement should be reached in the conference are:
1. How much are the industrialized countries willing to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases?
2. How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit the growth of their emissions?
3. How is the help needed by developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change going to be financed?
4. How is that money going to be managed?
Talking about emission cuts during a slowdown is a tricky issue, and with the world economy barely beginning to drag itself out of the economic recession, the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference could not have come at a better time to test the seriousness with which countries approach this issue.
India has taken a somewhat quixotic stand about the whole issue, saying that it wants an international agreement in Copenhagen, but cannot agree to binding emission cuts. While this may sound good, it does leave a lot of space open for future maneuvering, which is something the rest of the world is not going to be mighty pleased about. In effect, it is promising little.
Many developing nations, led by India and China, have opposed limits on growth of their emissions, and have flatly ruled out any caps on current levels. The stance taken by India is that while developed nations have already gained from unlimited emissions during their growth and maturity phases to attain very high standards of living, the same growth and living standards are being denied to the developing nations by asking them to cap emissions. While there is undoubtedly some element of truth in this, what is important is to look at the bigger picture.
The reality today is that we are running out of planet. As badly phrased as this sounds, this is the most apt way to put it. There is simply no way our planet can take our abuse any more, and this realization is dawning pretty rapidly on us in the form of climate change. Admittedly, climate change theory is almost entirely based on correlations, or what skeptics prefer to call coincidences; however, as a species, we simply cannot afford to take a chance. So the simple alternative to not accepting caps on emissions is taking a chance with our existence a few decades down the line. While this might sound extreme, what has to be understood is that large scale climate change occurs not gradually, but in cataclysmic forms after a certain tipping point is reached. A positive feedback loop is created after a particular level is cleared, and well, all hell will break loose after that.
Secondly, accepting caps is a give and take business. If the developing nations lobby refuses to accept limits, it is very likely that many developed nations, particularly those like the US who have been very reluctant in the past to be involved in any sort of emission control regulations, might back out. What we will then have is one hell of a mess to deal with, with nobody ready to agree to any kind of limits.
Third, if the developing nations do accept caps, it is very likely that the developed nations will accept cuts in their emissions. The difference here is significant. The developing nations have to agree on the extent of limiting the growth of their emissions, while the developed ones have to cut back and reduce them. Herein lines a business opportunity like never before for the developing nations, that of carbon trading. It is simply more cost-efficient to save emissions in developing nations than developed ones, and the benefits from this trading could far surpass those gained from economic and industrial growth achievable by allowing those extra emissions. The developed nations have also agreed to make available technology to achieve these emission reductions to developing nations.
The fourth point in this debate is slightly more philosophical. Do we really want to go the way the west has in the last 4 to 5 decades? Do we want to create a materialistic culture which breeds unhappiness and dissatisfaction despite having almost every material possession on earth? Do we want to wreck our natural heritage the way the west has? Can out indigenous peoples and our forests take this relentless assault on them, and do we want them to do that? Nobody questions the right to basic amenities to under-privileged sections of the society, but unbridled capitalism and a consumerist culture is not something we should equate with a ‘higher standard of living’.
India is a formidable player in the world scene due to its growing economic muscle. What it also needs to be is a mature player which thinks long-term, rather than seeing the whole scenario as an us versus them battle. The key phrase here is, again, limiting the growth of emissions, not the emissions itself. By keeping an open attitude, India can lead the way ahead in mitigating climate change. We need to agree to a figure for limiting emission growth at Copenhagen in December 2009. Undoubtedly, the road ahead will be tough. But there will be a road ahead. Which cannot be guaranteed if there is no agreement.
(PS: This is part of our View – Counterview series on strat.in . Harshad has presented the ‘for’ view, Gaurav will present the opposite side during the week)
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Related posts:
- Billions of Entrepreneurs in India?
- Growing the Telecom crop in Rural India
- Is Democracy good for economic growth?
- Issues of today’s India
- South Block (MEA) holding India back?
- Bookmark :
- Digg
- del.icio.us
- Stumbleupon
- Redit it
6 Responses to “Why India should agree to emission growth limits at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference 2009”
Subscribe!
Waiting for the counterview, as I do not agree with most of this article, especially, the “moral” part.
First,India is with China due to the compulsion not by choice!China is today largest contributor of GHG and per capita emission is about 4 times of India.Also China had stated Industrialization quite early than the India So If we take historical emission into account the India’s contribution is negligibale.
Today west is playing the game to stop the developing countries like India to come at stage where they can play a Influential role in International politics!
Yes we can be leader in clean economy and need not to follow west in development method!
I have tries to explain the Theory of Green revolution and need to move to evergreen revolution .You can check out http://www.whatswiththeclimate.org/2009/08/21/evergreen-economy/
I think one of the biggest points of debate will be emmissions per person. India and China have the biggest population in the world but won’t be offered the emmission credits in that proportion. If this can be agreed then things might be different.
Good point about the planet’s environment though but unfortunately we have divided the planet into countries and now no country will give up their own benefit for the planet. Some of the disadvantages of having boundries!
I feel the common agreement should be reached on per ca pita emissions.To put it in a different way, we take equal part in the sin towards our mother earth. This gives enough room for densely populated developing nations. Currently developing nations cannot enforce an emission cap for the simple reason that they don’t want to limit growth.
I’m proposing a direct relationship of emissions to jobs and every country will have to reduce emission levels to allow some room for growth. So what I propose is a factory can produce more but with the same amount of gases released.
Europe has borne the brunt by being the forerunner in implementing better emission norms for cars, better recycling standards and safety norms. I feel we need to share this responsibility too.
I definitely disagree to the moral guidance proposed above ….. its a choice a few people cannot decide for the nation …. unless you are in CHINA.
I agree with only the philosophical part! Indeed, unbridled consumerism and pursuit of growth is not bright idea.
As Harshad himself puts it, the whole structure of environment debate is based on statistical correlations alone. So to develop \ debate arguments based on that opens of possibilities of skulduggery, lobbying and all that.
Then Harshad’s and pro-sign-the-protocol-people’s entire argument is based on -if we do not agree to developed nations’ (entirely unjust) demand then they will not reduce theirs. What kind of maturity is this on their part?
What kind of technology and money will we get to cap our emissions? If those technologies exist why do the developed nations anyways not put it to use themselves? Most developed nations are running huge budget deficits and will do so for long time to come. How dependable would their assistance be?
As far as we showing this maturity is concerned, let us show this on our own. Let us focus on energy efficiency through better designs of homes, buildings, and other products.
Electric grid eats up 30-to 40% of energy before energy reaches points of consumptions. Even 10 % energy savings at POC will have multiplier effect and you will actually help people monetarily. Poor need that. Do developed nations have commercially tried technologies for the kind of homes and gadgets that we use? I wonder. Their economies are based on consumption led growth and thinking based on cheap hydrocarbons.
Another aspect, which will need technology and engineering, is distribute generation of power based on community needs and using multiple \ flexible energy sources. Do developed countries have technology for this? I bet not, since their models are based on big and centralized solutions (being more ‘efficient’)
Let us promote public transportation (at the cost of private transport too) to save on non-grid energy. And far heavens’ sake let us end this farce of electric vehicles in the name of global warming. Every time you charge your battery you use grid energy that one and half times that goes in charging. And you are not counting energy loss from electrical to chemical (storage) to electrical (for driving motor).
I hear that nuclear power gets a status of clean (no carbon!) energy. Let us also put an end to this kind of creativity.
But above solutions are not sexy and they will need antagonizing powerful lobbies. Do we have that kind of sagacity? If we do not, how will we show that by signing protocols?
And what happened to ‘population control’ -why has this fallen off the agenda? -if human activities are causing global warming?
The gulf between developed world’s standard of living (consumption) and that of the poor world is too huge -same kind of talents and work yield widely different monetary and consumption rewards.
There will be huge and painful adjustments and very painful at that for the rich of the world to do. I do not think, signing a protocol can in any way trigger or cause that.
Hemant
Well the author made 4 points.
1. Global preservation: whole planet in peril argument.
2. If we do then they will too. They is the developed nations. I think the motivation is from 1) and 3)
3) If they do then more trade opp.
4) Do we want to follow same trajectory? (Well you cant have the whole system built upon maximizing the profits and increase of consumption and then ask this question.)
I agree with the author on these 4 arguments. But I feel that his arguments were very superficial and just scratched the surface.
The devil is in the details. If developing countries accept emission cutoff then how should that be decided? per-capita, same as developed countries during their growth period, proportional to gdp? It is clear that some of these are fair and some are not.
A point that can be made against the topic will be. Whether developing countries accept the emission cap or not, the economics of carbon fuel will make an upper limit on the emissions. The only exception is coal and for that we don’t need emission caps but cheap technology transfer from developed world to developing world. So one might argue that economics of carbon fuel will render them unusable in many sectors.