Opinion What to take away from Copenhagen
Workable ideas that reduce climate change without impacting third world development....
The writing on the wall is clear. We are not going to have a legally binding climate agreement at Copenhagen next month. The US refusal at the APEC Summit to commit to cuts in green house gases,pending Senate approval of domestic climate legislation,puts a question mark on an effective agreement. Instead,continued legal negotiations to secure a new beginning from Copenhagen towards an era of sustainable low carbon-growth by setting a conclusive deadline next year is a near possibility. This premonition was evident in Indias nuanced shift in climate diplomacy by scaling down demands of deeper cuts of greenhouse gas emissions on the part of developed countries from 25 to 40 per cent by 2020 to 25-30 per cent as the best stake to bring all the countries on board for clinching a climate deal.
That the US has agreed to quantify cuts in the near future is nonetheless positive,for US involvement is imperative for an effective deal on climate change as it accounts for more than twenty per cent of the global emission of greenhouse gases. Two things become clear: one,this will silence many skeptical voices raised in the US and elsewhere about scientific certainty and IPCCs projections,as the effects of climate change are already visible; second,significant commercial opportunities associated with forestalling climate change is noteworthy as the global market for low carbon technologies is estimated to amount to USD 3 trillion per year by 2050. Already,it is estimated that industries such as renewable energy,waste management and water treatment will be worth USD 700 billion globally by 2010,on par with the value of the global aerospace industry.
There is already a flurry of activity going on in the US on the climate front. Climate litigations have increased in the US courts by attempting to create or force either actual climate-based regulations,or judicially imposed injunctive relief that would effectively impose standards for greenhouse gas emissions. The plaintiffs are mainly state governments and interest groups dissatisfied with the pace and substance of the federal governments actions in the climate arena. For instance,the Inuit Circumpolar Conference filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in December 2005 claiming that US climate change policy violates their rights by degrading the Arctic. The World Heritage Committee,which implements the World Heritage Convention to which the US is a party,has received four petitions to designate certain World Heritage Sites as endangered because of deterioration caused by climate change. In response,the committee in July 2006 adopted a set of recommendations on ways to respond to the threat of climate change. In early 2007,nearly 400 Inupiat villagers in the Alaskan town of Kivalina filed a legal suit in a US district court accusing twenty-four oil,gas and electric companies of being responsible for emitting tons of green house gases causing sea-ice,used to protect the natives of Kivalina from winter storms,to melt. The suit has two claims: one to recover monetary damages for past pain and ongoing contribution to global warming and second,damages caused by certain defendants acts in furthering a conspiracy to suppress the awareness of the link between these emissions and global warming.
Preventing climate change need not imply slower growth in either developed or developing countries. Developing countries have claim to rights of subsistence emissions as the global poor are entitled to develop. There is a duty to create and maintain carbon sinks but there is also the duty to incentivise and transfer clean technology. The latter is required in order to meet peoples energy needs in a way which does not cause climate change and which does not also expose their users and others to other unreasonable risks. Thus,there are a variety of different mitigation,adaptation and compensation responsibilities consistent with UNFCCC fairness and the common-but-differentiated responsibility principle and respective capabilities. Therefore any global deal on climate change must built upon the Bali-Roadmap,one that requires deep cuts in rich countries and nationally appropriate mitigation action by developing countries; adequate financial support from rich to developing countries; enhanced action on technology development and transfer; and strong action on deforstation. For instance,the REDD (reducing emission from deforestation in developing countries),scheme at Bali aims to allow poorer nations to sell carbon offsets to rich nations in return for not burning tropical forests,and encourages parties to undertake pilot projects to address the main causes of deforestation. This is a welcome step. This programme will focus,for example,on assessments of changes in forest cover and associated green house gas emissions,methods to demonstrate reductions of emissions from deforestation and the estimation of the amount of emission reductions from deforestation.
Thus concerted action to fashion a global deal on climate change,beginning from Copenhagen,must lay the foundation for a future era of dynamic low-carbon growth that succeeds in both cutting emissions and promoting sustainable development in developing countries.
The writer is associate professor at the Faculty of Law,
University of Jammu
Share
