The Hindu Business Line : Climate change: A time to introspect

The recent round of inter-governmental talks held in the Polish city of Poznan (December 1-12, 2008) to forge consensus on a post-Kyoto agreement on greenhouse gases (GHGs) reduction ended on a subdued note.

The result was not unexpected given the known positions of the then Bush administration and of the G-77 countries (read China and India) to any quantified commitments as demanded by the European Union. The US has been keeping away from joining either the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or its adjunct, the Kyoto Protocol. Developing countries such as China and India, though parties to the Convention, are outside the pale of the Protocol. Surprisingly, there were other developments, too, which militated against any great expectations being met at Poznan.

The US delegation representing a lame duck administration sat through the talks stoically, neither moved by exhortations by the likes of Mr Al Gore nor agitated by criticism, in contrast to its vigorous defence of its stand a year earlier at Bali.

The US President, Mr Barack Obama, who had announced a $150-million programme during his campaign to promote renewable energy development in the US and had spoken favourably of introducing federal legislation to enforce a ‘cap and trade’ emission regime on its industry, had dispatched green advocates such as Senator John Kerry to the talks. But following their remit, these people could do nothing more than simply take in the mood of the confabulations.

China and India were voluble in their opposition to any targeted cuts, mandatory or voluntary, in their GHG emissions on the known ground of the adverse impact of such cuts on their economic growth. But the really dampening note came from that champion of GHG mitigation, the EU. Even Germany, a frontrunner hitherto among the Europeans supporting quantified, time-bound reductions, remained subdued.

The cause for EU’s somewhat low profile at Poznan lay elsewhere. In parallel to Poznan, Brussels was hosting a European Union summit chaired by the French President, Mr Nicolas Sarkozy, to finalise EU’s target of effecting a 20 per cent reduction in its GHG emissions from its 1990 levels by 2020 and to meet 20 per cent of its energy requirements from renewable sources by that year.

More contentious was EU’s new policy to make GHG emission allocations to industry through an auction system in departure from the current practice of national allocations and individual industry quotas based on their needs and capacity to effect emission reductions on their own.

Agreement eluded the Brussels summit till the last minute due to spirited opposition from several quarters, which saw in the move to auction emission permits a blow to the competitiveness of their industries such as steel. The Brussels meet ended on a compromising note, accommodating demands from countries such as Poland to continue to burn coal, granting emission allocations without auction and other exceptions.

A perceptive journal pointed out that with all the concessions taken into account, the actual reductions in EU’s overall GHG emissions in 2020 may be “as trivial as four per cent” compared to 1990 levels. With this background, the EU, which in normal times would have moulded conference opinion on emission cuts, found itself handicapped.

Recession’s shadow

Overshadowing all other developments impropitious to Poznan was the emerging recession in global economy. Despite brave calls by many that in recession lay the best opportunity for a recovery with green credentials, scepticism ruled the meet.

Soon after the start, it became clear that with a delegation representing a departing administration in the US and the uncertainty surrounding the world economy, it would be impolitic to attempt to force the mitigation issue on the US. Instead, attention turned to an interpretation of the expression ‘shared vision’ used in the Bali Action Plan to make the developed countries, too, accept quantitative emission reduction targets as a share of their responsibility to control climate change. Needless to say, the move was thwarted effectively by the G-77 with active roles played by China and India.

The only fruitful results of Poznan were the agreement to make operational the ‘Adaptation Fund’ to aid vulnerable nations to take steps to combat the adverse impacts of climate change such as rising sea level, floods, droughts, crop damage and vector borne diseases and a decision to set in motion consultations on ‘Reducing Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation’ (REDD).

REDD, it may be recalled, was an initiative of the Bali Summit.

Is Bali still workable?

As an international meet from which much was expected in drawing up a blueprint of proposals to be considered, honed and adopted later in the year at Copenhagen, Poznan was hardly a milestone. But the lack of progress there should set us rethinking all that has happened so far.

First, we need to ponder whether the schedule drawn up at Bali to adopt a new international compact to combat global warming by the year-end is realistic under the present adverse global economic conditions. It is anybody’s guess how long the present downturn would last.

It is of little use to preach that now is the time to turn away from oil and coal and effect a sea-change in energy generation. There will be few takers for such suggestions among the developing countries and a good many developed ones, too. What can be said is that it is now the right time for the world community to make a serious beginning in energy conservation and in promoting interest in renewable sources of energy.

Second, would it be wise to redefine concepts such as “common but differentiated responsibility” and “shared vision” just to cast new obligations on emerging economies such as China and India? Both have come up with national action plans to limit their GHG emissions under the present stage of technology available for energy generation and use.

With transfer of modern technologies and helped by adequate fund transfers from international sources under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and devices such as the Clean Development Mechanism, these national efforts could be revised periodically. The developing countries were, rightly, not expected to shoulder mitigation targets under the UNFCCC and should not be expected to do so now either.

Third, it would be wise to follow up with the agreement arrived at in Bali (Bali Action Plan) that developed countries would adopt quantitative targets to mitigate GHG emissions and to this end would frame plans whose outcome would be “measurable, reportable and verifiable” and for developing countries to act similarly though without quantitative targets.

This in itself was a major concession agreed to by developing countries, notably China and India. There is little need to introduce new elements in this formulation to rope in the latter countries into a quantitative fold.

The coming months should make the world community introspect on accommodating the difficult economic present with sacrifices for a hopefully bright distant climate future.

(The author is a former Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. blfeedback@thehindu.co.in)

Related Stories:
Major economies agree cuts in global emissions necessary
Little progress on climate change
Differences persist on how to respond to climate change