On a short fuse

Hundreds were killed and many more rendered homeless when cyclone Aila hit Bangladesh and West Bengal recently. We can argue whether this happened because of climate change or not. But that is only a detail. Today, as the earth faces its most serious environmental crisis, the time to quibble over such detail is long past.For, an indisputable fact is that the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere, the consequence of decades of fossil fuel burning mainly by industrialised countries, has set in motion a series of environmental disasters.Today, the earth is warmer. If temperatures increase by two degrees Celsius, we are talking of major catastrophes. Sea levels are already rising. If they continue, entire island nations could be wiped out. Maldives, with its population of 300,000, is already planning evacuation strategies. Food production is declining in the countries that need it most, such as sub-Saharan Africa. A new report by the World Bank suggests that climate change will also impact agriculture in several parts of India. And glaciers, including those in the Himalayas, are melting faster. The list of environmental changes following global warming grows every day. The consequences of climate change are already on our doorstep.As the crucial COP 15 — the 15th Conference of Parties discussing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change — approaches (December 7 to 18 in Copenhagen, Denmark), the buzz about global warming can be heard in the corridors of power across the world. Even in India, several members of the new Cabinet mentioned the importance of these negotiations for India.Environmental issues are easier to grasp when they concern man-made or natural disasters that affect us, or when government action exacerbates environmental deterioration. They are more difficult to comprehend when they comprise international negotiations such as those in Copenhagen. Why should any of this be of interest to the ordinary Indian?Yet, as voluminous studies and documentation have already established, the consequences of global warming will affect everyone, rich and poor. But the poor will have to bear the greater burden, as their dependence on natural resources for survival is greater. According to the international charity Oxfam, by 2015 global warming will adversely affect an estimated 375 million people, the majority of them from developing countries. That is just six years away.The essentials of the debate on climate change have remained unchanged in the last decade. The current crisis is the result of accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the earth's atmosphere as a consequence of decades of uncontrolled fossil fuel consumption by industrialised countries. Their growth and current economic status was premised on this pattern of energy production and consumption.The price for this accumulation of GHGs is being borne largely by developing and poor countries. They are being forced to adapt to the changes in the environment resulting from an increase in the earth's temperature and they do not have the funds to use less carbon and yet sustain economic growth that is essential to their survival. The G77 countries and China have argued that not only should industrialised nations cut back their emissions of GHGs — China has demanded a 40 per cent cut to 1990 levels by 2020 — but that they should also finance poor countries if they want them to curb their emissions. With the focus on the growing economies of India and China that are using all available resources to meet their energy deficit, the importance of financial support to underwrite low-carbon growth becomes even more important. In Copenhagen this debate will continue but with one major difference. In 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol set up internationally agreed targets of limiting GHG emissions by industrialised countries, the biggest emitter of these gases, the United States of America, refused to come on board. Today, under the new Obama Administration, the US is more willing to be a part of an international agreement. President Obama has already announced a 10-year programme for renewable energy in the US with an investment of $150 billion. He has discussed with the automobile industry setting up fuel efficiency norms to reduce vehicle emissions. However, the US is still resisting any imposition of targets and many argue that even the steps it has taken are too little and too late given the crisis facing the world.Unfortunately, the flip side of this is US pressure on India and China to also accept targets to curb their GHGs. At the moment, the US and China together are responsible for 16 per cent of the carbon dioxide emitted. But while the per capita emission of the US is 20 tonnes, that of China is less than four tonnes. India, at just over one tonne per capita, is even lower. India and China have argued that while present and future accumulation of GHGs must be addressed, the current crisis is a consequence of the past. Therefore, the major responsibility for addressing it rests with the industrialised world.So Copenhagen and the run-up to it will see more of such sparring. India, as part of G77 countries, and China will push hard for a commitment from the industrialised countries for a percentage of their GDP to fund climate action in developing countries. In recent days, the Mexican government has put forward a proposal based on past and current emissions and the size of GDP to calculate how much countries should give for a global climate fund. Also, even as this is being written, crucial negotiations are under way in Bonn, Germany on the sticky issue of finance. The UN estimates that $100 billion per year will be needed for mitigation and Oxfam suggests another $50 billion a year for adaptation to climate change. An agreement in Bonn would hold out hope for a positive outcome at Copenhagen.But apart from this global dimension, countries like India and China also face the challenge of devising strategies that ensure growth and yet are environmentally responsible. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is quoted in India's position paper on climate change as saying, "Our people want higher standards of living, but they also want clean water to drink, fresh air to breathe and a green earth to walk on".  At present, our pattern of growth seems to be heading in exactly the opposite direction. There is no fresh air in our cities, clean water is available only to a few and our green areas are disappearing by the minute. For too long, governments have paid mere lip service to renewables. The ministry for non-conventional energy resources that has now been renamed as ministry for renewable energy was always considered unimportant. As a result, there are desultory efforts made to encourage solar energy in a country with abundant sunshine or to promote wind energy or tidal energy. How are these renewables going to be pushed by the new government? Similarly, in the building frenzy in our cities, little thought has been given to establishing building codes and norms that require energy efficiency and conservation in these new constructions. Even if we hold that others have brought on this crisis, surely we need to ensure that we do not add to the problem. Less energy intensive construction need not necessarily be more expensive. Yet, there is a singular absence of debate on such issues in India. While the world debates the dire consequences of automobile emissions, in India we continue to add more cars to our congested roads. In Europe, on the other hand, efforts are in place to reduce vehicular emissions by making cities bicycle and pedestrian friendly and improving public transport. This is combined with taxes, such as a congestion tax, to discourage private automobiles from entering crowded city centres. The result is cleaner air and smoother travel. Isn't that something every urban resident in India dreams of? Yet, inspect any Indian city's development plan and you see no attempt at such an environmentally sound approach. Is it impossible to plan to aim for the clean air the Prime Minister has spoken of by working on this perspective for our cities? Surely the question is not just one of funds but of vision. India cannot afford to wait until there is an international agreement on a climate fund before taking crucial decisions about its energy generation and consumption. Our poor will be amongst the millions who will bear the brunt of global warming. They are the environmental refugees that already flood towns and cities because every year drought, floods and other disasters force them to abandon their homes. Climate change will bring with it a noticeable increase in the scale and frequency of such disasters. Even as the Indian government lobbies internationally for a more just and equitable system to deal with the consequences of global warming, we as citizens should push the government to take steps that prevent this country from becoming a place where every breath you take is foul, every sip of water is contaminated and where green is a colour we see only on our flag.

 

The Hindu, 7th June, 2009