Environmental Balihoo

Prodipto Ghosh

 

Published in INDIAN EXPRESS on 20.12.2007

 

The Indian approach prevailed because the arguments of the EU and US were unfeasible and indefensible

 

The recently concluded UN climate change conference at Bali ended with, first, the European Union, and then the US, backing down from a patently iniquitous formula designed to shift the onus of tackling climate change from themselves to developing countries; that is, from those who caused it to those who are its likely victims. The developing countries, on the other hand, pressed for an alternative presented by India, based on reciprocity. That while they would contribute to the solution, they must be enabled to do so by the developed countries, who are the polluters, through provision of technology, finance and capacity-building. The developing countries prevailed, but not before tumultuous scenes — of tension, despair, incredulity, and finally relief.

Why were the negotiations at Bali so stressful and contentious? Why can’t we all just agree that we need to save the planet, and do so urgently? Why did the EU and the US insist that developing countries must contribute to the solution, although they are but a small part of the problem? And why is it so difficult for developing countries to accept that they must simply “avoid the mistakes of rich countries” while they grow?

The answer lies in a few facts that the negotiators know only too well, but the public is only dimly aware of. First, that even modest reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions which cause climate change is, barring a very small part, incredibly costly with the available lower carbon technologies. Windfarms, for example, are at least 50 per cent more expensive than coal-fired power plants of the same capacity, and produce power at best in one-third of the time. Second, that the necessary investments in energy-related infrastructure in developing countries such as China, India and Brazil till 2030 to enable their growth is humongous, at least 10 trillion US dollars, and this is even without use of more costly lower carbon technologies. Third, that the suppliers of the available lower carbon technologies are all in the rich countries, and that forcing developing countries to undertake GHG mitigation would act as a crowbar to prise open the rich pickings in their energy investments to companies in Europe, Japan and the US while closing the same markets to their own manufacturers.

However, the adoption of these lower carbon technologies would not seriously dent the problem. A recent Indian study with the help of a globally used energy-economy model concluded that to reduce less than just 10 per cent of emissions in India from what they would otherwise be in 2036 would require an additional investment of 2.5 trillion US dollars! This is well above two and one half times India’s current GDP, and would have to be sourced by building fewer schools, hospitals, village roads, drinking water and sanitation facilities, housing for the poor — indeed the entire range of activities to enable the country to grow and remove poverty. The formula presented at Bali by the EU and the US would thus have required poor countries to remain poor for many generations more, even as their corporates found large new markets for their technologies — it would be the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, pretty much for ever. The Indian approach prevailed at Bali, because this scenario was politically unfeasible and morally indefensible.

At this point in the debate the chorus goes out: will it not be in the interest of the developing countries themselves to reduce GHG emissions, because they would, after all, be the worst sufferers of climate change? Let us see why this argument is fallacious. India, for example, emits just 4 per cent of the global emissions while it has 17 per cent of the population. The climate impact of one tonne of GHG emitted anywhere is the world is felt across the world identically. Thus, if India were to eliminate all its GHG emissions, essentially by going back to the stone age, it would hardly matter for the climate change impacts on India, or indeed anywhere else!

Several other arguments are made for India to accept targets to reduce its emissions. “India’s per capita emissions may be low, but India is highly inefficient in its use of energy!” The facts speak otherwise. A just released World Bank study shows that India’s fossil fuel related carbon dioxide emissions per dollar of GDP (in purchasing power parity terms) is the same as Japan, often cited as the global leader in energy efficiency, and better than Germany, which also prides itself on its clean energy policies. The newer Indian plants in steel, cement, aluminium, paper, and oil refining have energy efficiencies at the global frontier. Another argument goes, “India’s emissions may now be low, but they will increase rapidly as India’s economy grows, and render useless any reductions by the developed countries!” Again, the facts are not helpful. In the last five years, the economy grew by 8 per cent a year, while energy use grew at just 3 per cent. Finally, “India’s rich have unsustainable lifestyles — they use laptops and cell phones, and travel by air”. Unfortunately, by this reasoning, an air hostess who flies 400 times a year has the most unsustainable lifestyle of all! The point is that a distinction must be made between emissions related to economic activity from which many benefit, and personal consumption. Indians in general, rich and poor, have highly sustainable lifestyles compared to their developed country counterparts — they recycle everything by patronising the raddiwala, eat a lot less meat, and bathe in just one bucket of water, not a tubful.

The climate change problem will eventually be solved when the costs of renewable energy (solar, wind, biomass) become competitive with those of fossil fuel technologies. This will call for a huge global R&D effort, which will require manpower, money and time. India has the necessary scientific capacity to contribute effectively to such a project. Unfortunately, far more effort is being expended by developed countries on securing markets for their currently available marginally lower carbon emitting but horrendously expensive technologies; and not enough on the next generation, truly sustainable technologies.