India and Copenhagen Summit Dr Arvind Kumar

India and Copenhagen Summit

Dr Arvind Kumar

The countdown for hammering out a new U.N. climate treaty at the forthcoming Copenhagen summit scheduled for December 2009 has already begun. A flurry of hectic diplomatic activity has already been set in motion wherein the developed world and the emerging economies are trying to bridge their differences on how to curb greenhouse-gas emissions that cause global warming.

The United States expects developing countries like India and China to agree to specific reduction targets on the emissions produced by their burgeoning economies. While arguing that this would hurt its economic growth, India wants the industrialized world to curb its pollution as well as fund new technologies in the developing world.

Enormity of the Issues

Climate change is one of the most complex challenges of the 21st century. As has been observed: “No country is immune and no country alone can take on the interconnected challenges posed by climate change, including controversial political decisions, daunting technological change, and far reaching global consequences.”¹ In other words, climate change is a common concern and it calls for joint concerted efforts by all countries.

The problem of climate entails serious implications for food production, natural ecosystems, freshwater supply, health, etc. According to recent scientific data, the earth’s climate system has progressively undergone change on both global and regional scales since the preindustrial era. Besides, the bulk of the warming observed during the past five decades is attributable to human activities.²

According to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections, by 2100 the global mean temperature could increase between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius.³ This phenomenal increase can adversely impact on the global hydrological system, ecosystems, sea level, crop production and related processes. The tropical areas, comprising mainly developing countries, including India, are likely to bear the main brunt. Viewed in a broad spectrum, the issue of climate change has seemingly emerged as part of the larger challenge of sustainable development.

In order to focus attention on the linkages of scientific evidence between GHG emissions from human activities and the risk of global climate change, the U N General Assembly established the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1990. The UNFCCC in its meeting held in 1992 at Rio de Janeiro laid the framework for the eventual stabilization of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, recognizing the common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and social and economic conditions. The Convention came into force in 1994. Subsequently, Kyoto protocol, which came into force in 2005⁴, reasserted the importance of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and adhering to sustainable development principles. It was expected that meeting the Kyoto targets of the 5 per cent average emission reduction was insufficient to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.⁵

Recent years have witnessed climate-related issues coming to the forefront of the negotiation agenda. The IPCC studies make it amply clear, however, that industrialized countries alone cannot achieve this reduction. Even if their emissions were reduced to zero in the near future, the current trends of growing emissions from developing countries alone could force the atmospheric concentration to exceed stabilization levels of 550 ppm. The participation of all countries, including the developing countries such as India and China, is essential for a successful worldwide effort to arrest the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.

GHG Emissions

Most experts agree that the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities are the key reasons for increased concentrations of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases. According to one IPCC report, between 1990 and 1999, an estimated 6.3 GtC/year was released due to the combustion of fossil fuels, and another 1.6 GtC/year was released due to the burning of forest vegetation. This was offset by the absorption of 2.3 GtC/year each by growing vegetation and the oceans. This left a balance of 3.3 GtC/year in the atmosphere.⁶ Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can be facilitated through controlling the release of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel combustion, land-use change and the burning of vegetation.

Leading climatologists have called for limiting global warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. If this advice is turned into practice, it can yield radical consequences. According to preliminary estimates, only a total of around 700 giga-tonnes of carbon dioxide can be emitted into the atmosphere. However, given the current rate of emissions, this ‘budget’ of 700-gigatonnes is likely to be exhausted in coming two decades. On the other hand, if an increase in emissions is permitted, it would render the world carbon ‘insolvent’ even sooner.

It is noteworthy that publication of three reports early this year has provided a new twist to the ongoing debate on climate change. The first report prepared by Susan Solomon et al., and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on 12 February 2009 showed that the climate change presently caused was largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. About 40% of the carbon dioxide produced by humans during this century would remain in the atmosphere until at least the year 3000.⁷

The second report, prepared by a team led by Myles R. Allen and published in the April 2009 issue of prestigious journal Nature, demonstrates that preventing more than two degrees means producing a maximum of half a trillion tonnes of carbon or 1830 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide between now and 2500.⁸

The third report, written by a team led by Malte Meinshausen and published in the April 2009 issue of Nature, suggests that producing 1000 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide between 2000 and 2050 would deliver a 25% chance of exceeding two degrees of warming.⁹

In other words, at the present rate the world will burn the ration what the Myles Allen et al.; have set aside for the next 500 years just in four decades. And according to Meinshausen’s carbon budget between now and 2050 would be exhausted before 2030.

According to the 2007 data available with the World Energy Council (WEC), which publishes figures for global reserves of fossil fuels, 848 billion tonnes of coal, 177,000 billion cubic metres of natural gas and 162 billion tonnes of crude oil are good to go.

Keeping in view the fact that the molecular weight of carbon dioxide is 3.667 times that of carbon, the burning of current reserves of fossil fuel would yield 3000 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.

According to Myles Allen’s suggestion, we can burn a maximum of 60% of current fossil fuel reserves by 2500, if we don’t want to exceed two degrees of global warming.

Meinshausen opines that we can afford to burn only 22% of current reserves between now and 2050 because we have already used one third of this budget.

In the wake of these stern warnings, there is dire need for setting an absolute limit to the amount of fossil fuel to be burnt – an urgent agenda for the Copenhagen summit.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions can lessen the projected rate and magnitude of warming and sea level rise. The greater the reductions in emissions and the earlier they are introduced, the smaller and slower the projected warming and the rise in sea levels. Future climate change is thus determined by historic, current and future emissions.

India and Climate Change

Viewed in a historical perspective, the developed countries have been the main contributors to emissions of CO₂. According to one estimate, developed countries are responsible for about 83 per cent of the rise in cumulative fossil fuel related CO₂ emissions since 1800.¹⁰

According to another assessment, developing countries accounted for only 37 per cent of cumulative CO₂ emissions from industrial sources and land-use change during the period 1900 to 1999, whereas industrialized countries accounted5 for 63 per cent.¹¹ However, owing to their higher population and economic growth rates, the fossil fuel CO₂ emissions from developing countries are likely to soon match or exceed those from the industrialized countries. Large countries like China and India could match the USA’s year 2000 greenhouse gas emissions within two to three decades.

Developing countries like India are already facing problems pertaining to forest and land degradation, freshwater shortage, food security and air and water pollution. Climate change will aggravate the impacts of deforestation and other economic pressures, leading to further water shortages, land degradation and desertification.

The increasing retreat of glaciers and icecaps in coming years can also lead to higher surface temperatures on land and increasing water stress. According to broad estimates, by 2025, as much as two-thirds of the world population, much of it in the developing world, may be subjected to moderate to high water stress.

India is a large developing country with nearly 700 million rural population directly depending on climate-sensitive sectors like agriculture, forests and fisheries and natural resources such as water, biodiversity, mangroves, coastal zones, grasslands etc., for their subsistence and livelihoods. Further, the adaptive capacity of dry land farmers, forest dwellers, fisher folk, and nomadic shepherds is very low.¹² The National Communications Report of India to the UNFCCC has explicitly shown that the climate change is likely to impact all the natural ecosystems as well as socio-economic systems.¹³

India’s share in global CO₂ emissions is still very small, as per International Energy Outlook 2005, published by the US Department of Energy. The contribution of India to the cumulative global CO₂ emissions from 1980 to 2003 has only 3.11%. Thus historically and at present India’s share in the carbon stock in the atmosphere is relatively very small when compared to the population. India’s carbon emissions per person are twentieth of those of the US and a tenth of most Western Europe and Japan. Global projections for emissions of Carbon Dioxide up to 2030 are shown in the Table-1 below:

Table-1 World Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Region, 1990-2030

(Billion Metric Tons)

Region	History		Projections					Average Annual Percentage Change
	1990	2006	2010	2015	2020	2025	2030	1990-2006	2006-2030
OECD North America Europe Asia	11.5 5.8 4.1 1.6	13.6 6.9 4.4 4.2	13.4 6.8 4.3 2.2	13.6 7.0 4.4 2.3	13.9 7.1 4.5 2.3	14.2 7.3 4.5 2.3	14.6 7.7 4.5 2.4	1.0% 1.2% 0.4% 2.1%	0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.3%
Non-OECD Europe- Eurasia Asia Middle East Africa Central and South America	10.0 4.2 3.7 0.7 0.7 0.7	15.4 2.9 9.0 1.5 1.0 1.1	17.6 3.1 10.5 1.7 1.1 1.3	19.5 3.2 11.9 1.8 1.2 1.4	21.5 3.3 13.6 1.9 1.2 1.4	23.7 3.4 15.4 2.1 1.3 1.5	25.8 3.4 17.0 2.3 1.4 1.7	2.8% -2.4% 5.7% 4.6% 2.5% 3.0%	2.2% 0.7% 2.7% 1.9% 1.5% 1.6%
Total World	21.5	29.0	31.0	33.1	35.4	37.9	40.4	1.9%	1.4%

Source: US Department of Energy, International Energy Outlook 2009, Washington, D.C.: Department of Energy, May 2009, p. 111.

As shown in Table-1, world energy-related carbon dioxide emissions register an increase by an average of 1.4 percent per year from 2006 to 2030. For the OECD, annual increases in carbon dioxide emissions are projected to average 0.3 percent over the 24-year period. The annual increases are not uniform, however. It is further revealed from the Table that total carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion of coal throughout the world are projected to increase by 1.7 percent per year on average, from 12.1 billion metric tons in 2006 to 18.0 billion metric tons in 2030. China accounts for 74 percent of the total increase in the world’s coal-related carbon dioxide emissions from 2006 to 2030, and India accounts for 8 percent. India’s carbon dioxide emissions from coal combustion are projected to total 1.3 billion metric tons in 2030, accounting for more than 7 percent of the world total. In the United States—the world’s other major coal consumer—coal-related carbon dioxide emissions rise more slowly, by 0.7 percent per year, to 2.5 billion metric tons (14 percent of the world’s total coal-related carbon emissions) in 2030. However, the lowest levels of emissions per capita in the world are in India and Africa. India’s emissions per capita increase from 1.1 metric tons per person in 2006 to 1.4 metric tons per person in 2030,

India has expressed its willing to play an active role in helping work out a global accord in resolving the complexities involved in climate change. As India’s Minister for Environment, Jairam Ramesh, has said that India is not part of the problem but it wants to be part of the solution. India's national climate plan envisages voluntary mitigation measures by 2020. It includes mandatory fuel efficiency standards, renewable energy initiatives, clean coal technologies, and lower methane farming. India is, however, firmly against erecting trade barriers against a country that does not accept limits on its carbon emissions.

During the last week of September 2009, representatives from about 100 countries met at the UN Headquarters in New York in an attempt to jump-start negotiations in advance of a December summit in Copenhagen at which a global treaty governing greenhouse gas emissions is to be produced.

However, the New York meeting has seemingly only served to highlight the impossibility of realizing even the most limited environmental reforms in a world order dominated by rival powers.

In the wake of mounting threat of environmental catastrophe, the inability of the world leaders to agree on even modest measures to meet it is all the more glaring. There prevail sharp divisions among the world’s three largest greenhouse gas producers, the US, China, and Europe.

China and the US by themselves produce 40 percent of all carbon emissions. The two nations, whose economies are also tightly bound together, have refused to agree to mandates on emission reductions.

In fact, the US has taken no significant measures to reduce its carbon emissions. US President Obama favours a ‘free market’ solution to global warming, or so-called ‘cap and trade’ measures, which would provide rich incentives to corporations to modestly reduce carbon emissions, while turning pollution into a tradeable commodity.

The Obama administration has reiterated the Bush administration position that combating carbon emissions is the responsibility of developing industrial powers like China and India. Given that China and India are rapidly growing economies, it is unsurprising that their carbon emissions are also growing rapidly. But they still lag far behind the US in per capita carbon production. While the US produces about the same amount of carbon as China, it has less than a fourth of China’s population.

The climate negotiations are complicated as they impact global economy like few other multilateral agreements so far. They are built on four basic and parallel channels: “Who should mitigate and how much? How climate-friendly technologies should be diffused to the parts of the world that need it and need it quick? How the burden of adapting to inevitable climate change should be shared? And finally, how should the finances needed to do all that it takes to adapt and prevent catastrophic climate change be generated and shared?”¹⁴

As the situation obtains at present, there is pretty much nothing on the negotiating table. Washington has reportedly blocked talks of fund transfers and sharing of existing technology and the EU is still fighting within on whether it can at all provide any funds.

Simultaneously, some Western countries have painted India of being ‘obstructionist’, whereas some recent pronouncements from India’s Minister of Environment seem to indicate that India wants to now gain the tag of a `deal-maker' and act `flexibly'. But as one Indian negotiator points out, "The negotiations exist because all countries are flexible. It is a process of give and take. Nobody wins all. We cooperate to do what's best and to which all shall agree. But why should India, which has taken several bold and concrete steps since the PM took charge of climate change with his council, be called `obstructionist'."¹⁵

Conclusion

The World Development Report 2010 has given three apt suggestions: We must act now; We must act together and We must act differently. We must act now because what we do today determines both the climate of tomorrow and the choices that shape our future. We must act together because climate change is a crisis of the commons. We must act differently because we cannot plan for the future based on the climate of the past.¹⁶ There is a dire need to heed the sane advice and act in unison for saving this planet from annihilation. The safeguard from the calamities of global climate change is not the sole responsibility of any single nation but the entire humanity. So, let Copenhagen summit show the light.

Notes

1. “Foreword”, in World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change, Washington, D.C.: World Bank, September 2009, p. iv.

2. For details see, IPCC, Climate Change 2001: Synthetic Report, Geneva: IPCC, 2001.
3. Ibid.
4. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 11 December 1997, 37, I.L.M., p. 32, available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf . As on 18 March 2008, 174 countries had ratified the Kyoto Protocol.
5. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 9 May 1992, 31 I.L.M, p. 849, available at http://unfcc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf . The Convention entered into force on 21 March 1994 had been ratified by 192 countries as of 22 August 2007. Among the signatories are major greenhouse emitters like the United States, the European Union, China, Russia, Japan as well as India. See the Status of Ratification, available at http://unfccc.int/essentialbackground/convention/statusofratification/items/2631.php .
6. IPCC, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Summary for Policy Makers and Technical Summary of the Working Group 1 Report, Geneva: IPCC, 2001.
7. Susan Solomon et al.’s report in the Proceedings of the National Science Academy, USA is available at http://www.pnas.org/content/106/18/7324.full.pdf+html?sid=84f81c54-7083-4991-9d8f-daaf6c53alc4 .
8. Available at http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090401/pdf/458562a.pdf .
9. Ibid.
10. For details see, R. Loske, Scope o he Report: Setting the Stage: Climate Change and Sustainable Development, Third Assessment Report of Working Group III to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva: IPCC, 1996.
11. For more information see, World Resource Institute, World Resources 2000-2001, People and Ecosystems: the Fraying Web of Life, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
12. N. H. Ravindranath and J. Sathye, Climate Change and Developing Countries, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.
13. India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, India’s Initial National Communications to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, New Delhi: Ministry of Environment, 2004.
14. Nitin Sethi, “Where will India draw the line at Copenhagen climate summit?”, Times of India, 22 October 2009.
15. Ibid.
16. World Development Report 2010, n. 1, p. vi.