The Hindu Business Line : Global warming: Striking a balance

The crux of the global warming problem is to strike a balance between the need of poor nations (to eradicate poverty) and the greed of rich nations (to get more materialistic). Which is why developing countries, including India, have raised the issue of per capita emission as the criterion for fixing limits on emissions.

P. P. Sangal

Ten years have elapsed between the Kyoto Protocol (December 1997) and the Bali Declaration of December 2007. This period has been certainly momentous for those who are truly concerned about disastrous effects of ‘global warning’ or ‘climate change’. The world cannot shut its eyes and ears to the latest fourth report of Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighting sure-to-happen phenomena.

IPCC warning

According to the report, the world will witness air and ocean temperatures increasing between 1.1 ºC to 6.4 ºC, widespread melting of snow and rising sea levels between 18 cm to 59 cm by 2100. This would create extreme climate conditions of droughts, floods, hurricanes, unduly hot summers and wet, stormy winters. What an irony; the poor countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America — the least emitters of green-house gases (GHGs) — would be the worst affected.

How it affects India

Talking especially about India, nearly 46,000 glaciers (one-third of world’s glaciers) in the Himalayas between 2,000 and 5,000 metres attitude have started receding by 10-15 metres every year (according to the Geological Survey of India) causing concerns of rivers getting dry in summer.

As a result, our rice production may come down by 10 per cent by 2030 and 25 per cent by 2080. Also, wheat production — another staple — would be considerably reduced, as projected by the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI). Many of the country’s coastal areas are likely to get submerged. There are already signs of inundation of Maldives and parts of Bangladesh.

Impending devastation

Scientists have further predicted the destruction of the Amazon rainforests and the Great Barrier Reef and forced migration of several millions of people from the equatorial regions. European Union nations, especially Spain, Italy, Greece, Britain and Northern Europe, will face unbearable heat.

Desertification around the Sahara, shrinking of Mt Kilimanjaro’s snowcap in Africa, the Katrina hurricane of US in 2005 and incessant rains of Mumbai in 2005 are all symbols of climate change crises. There is also evidence that sea ice is now covering 40 per cent less area than it did 26 years ago, off the west Antarctic Peninsula. The list is endless.

Kyoto protocol

The above findings are based on the researches of internationally renowned scientists. The former US Vice-President, Mr Al Gore, too, has issued a stern warning to the political leaders and administrators of the world, especially the rich nations, on these issues. Conferring the 2007 Nobel Peace prize on Mr Al Gore and IPCC is testimony to the fact that global warming is unequivocal.

The Kyoto Protocol had mandated that 36 rich countries including the US, Canada, Japan, Australia, the European Union (listed at Annexure A to the protocol) reduce their emissions by 5.2 per cent to the average of their 1990 levels by 2008-12. It is noteworthy that the US has not signed this treaty yet and Australia, after the change of government, signed it just before the Bali Conclave of 187 countries.

To what extent the above legally binding targets will be met by rich countries is not clearly known. The progress in this direction is far from satisfactory, though EU countries appear to have taken this challenge with somewhat greater sensitivity.

Carbon trading

As a measure to reduce global warming, it is provided in the Kyoto Protocol that if rich nations are not able to meet their targets, they will have to buy what is called Certified Emission Reduction (CER) Certificates from the developing nations.

To explain this point, no GHG emission reduction targets were imposed on poor countries (listed at Annexure B of the protocol), because their emissions are very low. Rather, if such countries reduce their emission equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide by adopting Clean Development Mechanisms (CDMs), they can earn one CER Certificate. This certificate can be bought at a price by rich nations for not meeting their targets. This is called “carbon trading”.

How effective?

The moot question is whether carbon trading will be effective in reducing the total global warming. Developing nations are being lured by the big business opportunity in carbon trading. It may appear so in the short term but certainly not in the long term.

Developing nations such as Brazil, India, China, Korea and Russia have to grow at a fast rate if they want to eradicate poverty.

This means their emissions would also increase sufficiently and they would not be able to earn CERs after some time. Thus, carbon trading does not seem to be a practical long-term strategy to combat global warming.

Need and greed

From the foregoing analysis, it is clear that the crux of the global warming problem is to strike a balance between the need of poor nations (to eradicate poverty) and the greed of rich nations (to get more materialistic).

Which is why, at the Bali meet, developing countries, including India, raised the issue of per capita emission as the criterion for fixing limits on emissions. At present, India’s per capita emission is 4 per cent that of the US and 28 per cent that of China.

EU proposal

The EU proposed a reduction in emission of 25-40 per cent, which was not accepted by the US, Japan, Canada, Australia, India and China and other developing countries. Why the developing countries have not agreed to these limits can be understood, but the intransigence of some rich nations is hard to understand.

The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. The Bali Declaration has, therefore, impressed upon nations that a successor treaty to Kyoto Protocol should be finalised by December 2009 in Denmark after detailed discussion in Poland in December 2008 on the issues raised at Bali. Time is running out without any concrete action being taken.

What can be done

The following measures should form a part of any new treaty if we are serious in fighting global warming.

Energy policy emphasis on use of eco-friendly and renewable sources of energy such as solar, wind, nuclear and hydropower so that reduction in use of thermal energy and fossil fuels can be brought about.

Conservation and efficient use of energy by adopting clean technologies. Here, rich nations should set an example of true international cooperation by providing concessional funds to poor nations to buy clean technologies.

Impose a global ban on deforestation and increase afforestation on a war footing.

All rich countries should agree on high emission reduction targets for themselves keeping in view the socio-economic development requirements of poor nations. Per capita emission or any such reasonable criterion can be taken as the basis for fixing emission reduction limits. Maybe, the higher a nation’s per capita income, the higher should be the per capita emission reduction target!

Heavy penalties to be imposed on rich nations not adhering to their emission reduction targets. Penalties to be used for providing clean technologies to the developing countries.

Carbon trading earnings of a country should be used only for deploying clean technologies for the seller of carbon credits. The buyer of these credits should also show a clear plan to reduce emission rather than depend on carbon credits.

The Kyoto Protocol and any successor treaty should ask governments to tax-exempt incomes of their business houses from the sale of CERs.

The Montreal Protocol has already set an example where incomes received in connection with the phasing out of ozone-depleting substances are tax-exempt in some countries. For example, in India, such substances are tax exempt. Similar fiscal incentives can also be considered.

To intensify research on evolving Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies. Recently, Jon Gibbins, an expert on CCS technology at Imperia College London, and many other researchers have made this point. The technology, however, should ensure that the underground carbon dioxide does not start leaking out into the air after some saturation point is reached.

Let us save ourselves from the ignominy of being dubbed as selfish by our future generations for bequeathing them a highly polluted environment with dire consequences. The time to act is now or never.

(The author, a former Director, Central Statistical Organisation, is a consultant on Environment and Poverty Alleviation. He can be reached at ms0103rs@gmail.com)