The Hindu Business Line : Climate talks: Kyoto to Bali

Against the background of the recent UN meet on climate change, N. R. KRISHNAN points out that it is time the developed world accepted the hard reality that developing countries, including China and India, may not be able to accept any cuts in their fossil fuel consumption and, hence, in GHG emissions, as energy is the lifeline of their economic growth.

Since the release of the UK Government commissioned Stern Report in September 2006 and the Fourth Assessment Report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change early this year, world leaders have met more frequently than their otherwise busy schedules would permit to develop a framework for the post-2012 period by the end of this year at a climate summit in Bali and have the draft of a new protocol ready by 2009. But little agreement has been reached till now on wh at a future climate control regime should look like.

The first assessment period of the Kyoto Protocol, setting limits on the quantities of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) that can be emitted by the developed countries in a year, begins in 2008 and ends in 2012. Barring Germany, the Netherlands and the UK, the progress recorded by most others so far in taking steps to meet their individual targets inspires little confidence, though there has been no dearth of statements of vision to meet these goals.

The US has refused to become a party to the Protocol or to its parent treaty, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). China and India, two big emitters of GHGs, are not bound by targets to reduce their emissions of these gases and they have stated repeatedly that they would not accept any. They fear, and quite rightly, that any curbs on their GHG emissions would amount to cuts in their fossil fuel energy consumption and would mean reducing their economic growth itself.

EU’s Vision 2020

The European Union, whose commitment to the cause of mitigating climate change has been unquestionable, released its Vision 2020 document in March, 2007 aiming at a target of 20 per cent reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2020 with a further 10 per cent cut if nations like the US, Russia, China and India followed suit (New Scientist, March 2007).

The Vision had no place for nuclear energy as one among the substitutes for fossil fuels, understandably due to strong German and Austrian opposition. Interestingly, the Vision provided for legally binding targets to be set for each member country in respect of the share of renewables in their total energy mix, a move clearly inspired by Germany and Denmark which have, of late, developed a great liking for wind energy.

Driven by Vision 2020 and undeterred by the known positions of US, China, India, and Brazil, the German Chancellor, Ms Angela Merkel, pressed forward to clinch a deal among the “G8+12” (G8 plus four) in June this year. Needless to say, China and India were invited. Despite claims to the contrary, the Baltic summit could do no better than decide to ‘consider seriously’ halving global emissions by 2050 and giving a political mandate for the start of negotiations on a post 2012 compact.

Europe was to witness one more event in the climate calendar in late August, when a thousand diplomats, scientists, business leaders from 158 countries and, of course, the ubiquitous activists gathered in Vienna. With due reservations expressed by many industrialised countries, the Vienna meet agreed to set a non-binding target of reducing GHG emissions by 25-40 per cent by 2020.

Of course, the price tag of $200 billions per year for assistance to developing countries to achieve the goal in addition to existing commitments under normal Overseas Development Assistance dampened the enthusiasm of those who would be made to pick up the tab ultimately. For their part, activists accused Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Switzerland of “hindering the progress in Vienna.”

With Vienna, the common refrain of developed countries that big emitters like China and India need to be disciplined has become strident. Europe, in particular, feels its competitive position in global export trade has weakened considerably, thanks to mandatory Kyoto restrictions and the exemption enjoyed by emerging giants like China and India.

UN meet

Perhaps, the most sensible conclusions reached so far were those expressed by the participants at the APEC summit in Indonesia this month. The summit, attended by the US, Russia, China and Australia among others, grasped what was possible and passable than the ideal and impracticable. The leaders agreed to bring about a 0.25 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions for every dollar of GDP by the year 2030 and to increase forest cover over 20 million hectares by 2020.

It was against the above background of chequered climate negotiations that the largest-ever high-level meeting on climate change was convened by the UN Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-Moon, on September 24 in an effort to forge a coalition to accelerate a global response to climate change. During the one-day meeting, participants from over 150 nations, including 80 heads of state or government exchanged views on climate change and galvanised political will for the UN climate change conference in Bali in December, prompting Mr Ban to say that climate change was “directly and constructively discussed at the highest level for the first time in history.”

Follow-up meetings will be held by the US on September 27 and the UN General Assembly will discuss the issue again on September 28.

Expectedly, the last gathering will seek to “mobilise political will” to figure out the contours of a post-Kyoto regime that can be blessed at the Bali Summit.

The hard reality of the developing countries, including the more industrialised among them like China and India not being able to accept any cuts in their fossil fuel consumption and hence on their GHG emissions has still to be accepted by the developed world. Energy is the lifeline of their economic growth. Together, they have a third of the world’s population but their per capita GDPs (on a Purchasing Power Parity reckoning) of $1090 and 520 (year 2005) respectively are well below the global average of $7,868.

China and India

China is said to have surpassed the US in its total emissions per year, making it the top emitter in the world but its annual per capita emissions of five tonnes of CO{-2} equivalent is far lower compared to the 10 tonnes of Italy, 11 tonnes of the UK, Germany’s 15 tonnes or the US’ 24. India ranks well below, at two tonnes.

India’s growth saga began only in the 1990s just when global warming concerns began to surface. Though a newly industrialising nation it has a truly impressive record of energy use efficiency. Its Total Primary Energy Supply for every dollar of GDP, on a Purchasing Power Parity basis, is only 0.19 compared to the global average of 0.21 which puts it ahead of Sweden and the US and comparable to Netherlands.

A sustained 8-10 per cent annual growth in GDP would demand a three-fold increase in its energy requirements from the present 528 MTOE (million tonnes of oil equivalent ) by the year 2031-32 and since over 80 per cent of these requirements would be met by climate unfriendly conventional fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) even under the most optimistic scenario of harnessing renewables, it is inescapable that India would continue to contribute to global GHG emissions significantly in the coming years.

Much has been made of clean technologies as a panacea for curbing emissions. The fact is that they serve the needs only to a small extent. Some of them like carbon capture and sequestration are in their infancy and have yet to be applied to coal-based power generation. Others like integrated coal gasification and combined cycle power generation offer promise but have yet to be tried out on large-scale plants.

In the short and medium terms, measures like demand-side management, energy efficiency, mass transit and carbon capture through afforestation offer the most worthwhile and practicable solutions to reduce energy consumption and GHG releases.

(The author is a former Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.)