Opinion The compulsions of Copenhagen

Current lifestyles and economic activities all over the world are based on the intensive use of fossil fuel. Fossil fuel energy has high levels of emission of carbon dioxide,which results in global warming. According to scientists,the per capita emission by 2050 needs to be around 2 tons of carbon dioxide as a global average. This implies that the developed countries must cut their emission by 90 per cent from the 1990 levels by 2050 with intermediate target to be reached by 2020 and 2030. But developing countries would also need to make substantial cuts because even if their emission today may not be beyond 2 tons of carbon dioxide,as economic growth picks up,this will rapidly rise above the stipulated target.

For a country like India,the current emission is only a modest 2 tons but sustained growth rate of 8-9 per cent will see a dramatic rise in per capita emission. The Indian argument is that the problem has been created not by us but by the US,Europe and other developed countries and therefore the burden of emission control,needs to be implemented by them. Attempts to force an emission target on countries like India have a danger as it might adversely affect growth and hurt poverty reduction efforts. The known technologies to produce energy to make it more efficient with lower pollution are expensive,so the developing countries naturally want access to technology and assured finance from the developed countries. Only through these means can they hope to combine high growth rate with lower emission discharge.

The international framework on climate change,therefore involve five key issues:

(a) Mitigation which fixes a near term commitment to emission control with intermediate targets.

(b) Adaptation which means efforts to deal with unavoidable consequences of climate change

(c) Finance,namely schemes to pay for lower emission regime.

(d) Technology,namely methods for advancing and distributing low carbon technology; and

(e) Long-term vision in developing a simple framework that combines all the four together.

Related with this is the issue of Measurement,Reporting and Verification (MRV). Namely,if a country like India does take steps to reduce its emission what is the process and institution to verify that this reduction have actually been carried out. Unless there is objective measurement and verification of reduction in emission,developed countries will not be willing to make major finances available without ensuring that the emission reductions has actually been achieved.

There is another related issue of some relevance to India. This is to deal with black carbon and ozone which,unlike carbon dioxide,stays in the atmosphere for a much shorter time. Black carbon is a widespread form of particles of air pollution which makes air sooty. Incomplete combustion is a sign of energy waste. Vehicles and ships fuelled by diesel with poorly-maintained engine releases it and so do forest fires and households and factories that use wood. The present use of wood and animal waste like cowdung in rural India leads to black carbon and soot. Switch over to cleaner fuels like LPG will be of enormous help. The melting of the Himalayan and Tibetan glaciers caused as much as because of black carbon as by carbon dioxide. It is much easier to reduce black carbon and ozone than carbon dioxide. That is why some economists like Prof. Veerbhadra Ramanathan and Jessica Wallack view this effort as a low-hanging fruit.

The Indian position to the ongoing negotiations has been less than consistent. We must be mindful of at least five key factors:

First,defining obligations in terms of per capita emission differentials is both ethical and expeditious. However the other simple fact that while we may not be a major contributor to the stock but an increasingly significant player in the flow of emission given growth compulsions cannot be wholly overlooked.

Second,common but differentiated responsibility is well accepted but must be mindful that in the near future more than us,it enables China to get away with existing astronomical emission levels and its relentless accretion. Rigid insistence between Annex 1 countries (A1C) and non-Annex 1 countries (NA1C) oversimplifies some serious infirmities.

Third,voluntary actions to reduce energy-intensity accepted even by the Chinese,a line being pursued by the environment minister,is consistent with the approach as being a part of the solution than part of the problem in securing international arrangements.

Fourth,a consistent stance that international disclosures must be that technology and finance which become externally available cannot be too jealously protected. It is well recognised that both technology and finance are in the final analysis fungible.

Fifth,finally the dynamics of international negotiations always need flexibility. Developed countries have yet to demonstrate a seriousness of intent and coherence of action to persuade the poorer countries in accepting concomitant obligations. National interest must be paramount. However boxing ourselves in a corner cannot augur well for successful outcomes.

Rising economic clout has international obligations. We need to show vision and leadership quality at Copenhagen.

The writer is a Rajya Sabha MP.