The Copenhagen conundrum

The news media has been full of the co­ntroversies surrou­nding the climate change summit at Copenhagen. Prime space a­nd time has been accorded to the stand-off between members of India’s negotiating te­am as also to the stand-off between the developing and the developed world; within the developing world and within the developed world too! Th­ere seems to be a complete br­eakdown in negotiations.

Why are the governments of the world in such an unprecedented situation? The answers probably lie in the increasingly undeniable and th­reatening findings of science (the leaked e-mail exchanges notwithstanding), the numbing and desperate moral responsibility arising from the kn­owledge of the impact of cu­rrent decisions and negotiating skills on the future existence of millions and balancing the ab­ove with a narrowly defined — both in terms of geographical and time scales — task of protecting national interests.

Whereas the fourth assessment report of the inter-governmental panel on climate change (IPCC) gave a dire wa­rn­ing on the window of opportunity for action on climate change being limited to the 2017-2020 period, in the th­ree interim years since this report was published, scientific predictions and actual observations have both pointed to much more rapid changes in ocean systems and the consequent ‘tipping points’ that co­uld irreversibly alter these ec­osystems with a cascading impact on other ecosystems.

The Met office at the Ha­dley Centre in the UK also has a decadal forecast which says “at least half of the years after 2009 are expected to be war­mer than the 1998 record.” The year 1998 was when the world experienced the war­mest year on record. The low-lying areas of a number of countries, and particularly the small island states of the world are crystal gazing into a future where their countries would almost be entirely submerged un­der the seas if the world does not act in concert today. Unfortunately, the vulnerability of these poor co­untries are significantly higher than those of the rich countries that have created the problem.

So, what needs to be done? First and foremost, we need to be able to cut down our emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to near zero levels in the next couple of decades, in particular carbon-dioxide. Wi­th the energy sector contributing to the major part of GHGs, this implies reinventing our infrastructure, our delivery sy­s­tems and our skill sets to move to either extre­mely hi­gh efficiency levels or to renewable energy forms.

At the major economies fo­rum at L’aquila earlier this year, a consensus emerged on limiting the average increase in wo­rld temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels to avoid dangerous climate ch­ange consequ­ences. The vulnerable countries identified above want th­is to be limited to 1.5 degrees, which wo­uld mean that the ea­rth’s accumulated GHGs are already ab­ove the levels of desirability!

A 2 degree goal would give us a carbon budget of ~ 400 gigatonnes (Gt) going up to 750 gt if we lower the probabi­lity of meeting this goal to two-thirds. If we were to consider the GHG space available as a cake, nearly 80 per cent of this cake has already been eaten, with the developed countries acco­unting for 70 per cent of the consumption with a mere 25 per cent of the aggregate population. So, the arguments then boil down to historical responsibilities, fairness and justice.

Using a remaining carbon budget of 750 gt, which is very generous, if an equal entitleme­nt was to be given to all hu­man beings inhabiting earth in the next 40 years, we would ha­ve a right to emit ~2.2 tCO2/ capita. The developed co­untri­es average today, from 1850 onward, is ~14 tCO2 and for the developing countries is ~2 to­nnes. If one got into historical responsibilities, then the developed countries have used up their budget till 2050 and owe the world a debt of nearly 200 gt. It is no wonder then that they do not want to be held accountable for historical em­issions. But then, how do they account for the reduced opportunities that the developing wo­rld are faced with or the higher marginal cost that they have to pay for the dramatically redu­ced share of the cake? The figure gives an idea of the relative shares of different co­untries if they were to pay a noti­onal sum of $100 billion a ye­ar for the next four years to the de­veloping world as either an adaptation fund or as compensation.

In all the above, India has had a relatively small role to play and has grossly underutilised its rightful share of the resource. So the government is right in objecting to the pressure to assume emission reduction targets. However, we are also aware of the gross energy inefficiencies in our system and the opportunities we have, to adopt a more climate-friendly future. Is this our opportunity to show global leadership? Is that what environment minister Jairam Ra­mesh was trying to, rather undemocratically, do?

The writer is executive director, TERI