The Hindu Business Line : Case for a new climate protocol

Given the divisions that any serious discussion on limiting GHG reductions generates among its members, even the EU would be relieved to see a new a global arrangement replacing Kyoto. The US may very well take the lead in such an exercise.

N. R. Krishnan

The former US Vice-President, Mr Al Gore, is a sage of our times — a time marked by carbon in the air and consequent rise in global temperatures. The Nobel award to him last year was a token of recognition of his unrelenting championship of the cause of carbon-free air and the need to save humanity from the disasters of climate change.

But, over the ages, humanity, though appreciative of messianic messages, often balks at the attendant call to make sacrifices and withstand the initial pain and privation, regardless of the ultimate gain and wellbeing. Such has been the case with climate change too. But Mr Gore is not a man to be put down easily in his crusade.

In his latest piece in The New York Times (November 9), Mr Gore exhorts the US President-elect, Mr Barack Obama, to launch a five-pronged drive to rid the US of its fossil fuel addiction. Nothing of this is new or unheard of before. The five key aspects are:

Promotion of solar and wind energy generation on a large scale in the south-western deserts of the country and in the long wind belt from Texas to North Dakota;

A national ‘smart grid’ to transmit the renewable energy to the four corners of the land (price tag being $400 billion over 10 years);

Nudging Detroit to turn out only plug-in hybrids;

Promotion of energy efficient buildings and, last but not the least,

Lead the “world’s efforts to replace the Kyoto treaty next year in Copenhagen with a more effective treaty that caps global carbon dioxide emissions and encourages nations to invest together in efficient ways to reduce global warming pollution quickly…”

Ambitious timeframe

What makes the present exhortation different from anything heard before is the far too ambitious timeframe within which the goal is expected to be achieved, that is, “producing 100 per cent of our (US) electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years.”

Mr Gore seems to have overshot his mark. At home, his well-meaning effort runs the risk of being dismissed as Utopian. Replacing 54 per cent of coal-based electricity generation by renewable resources, even within the next 50 years, is a tall order. No wonder Mr Obama has been cautious enough to limit himself to introducing a “cap and trade” emissions programme and investing $150 billion over the next ten years towards development of renewables.

He expects to cut carbon emissions significantly over a very long term, say by 80 per cent by 2060, without specifying interim targets.

In an economy groaning under severe recession, with monthly job losses running into thousands — September and October alone saw the wiping out of over 400,000 jobs in the US, and lengthening queues for welfare with winter round the corner — Mr Gore’s message may be difficult to sell to the US Congress and the people. The new occupant of the White House from January next may not like to start off on the wrong foot either.

Second, for the US and the rest of the world, falling oil prices and discovery of large reserves of gas in the Arctic, Russia and Central Asia are too tempting to be ignored and may dampen the ardour for the unconventional.

This was precisely what happened in the 1970s and the 1980s. The oil shock of the 1970s saw a great deal of attention being paid to the development of renewables but, come the 1980s, as oil prices fell, many a renewable energy project fell by the wayside and further technological developments in this area stagnated.

Project financing

It cannot, of course, be gainsaid that global warming has lent an air of urgency to the speedy adoption of renewables now but economics often overrides care for the planet. This is true even at the present juncture.

Project financing for solar, wind and bio-fuel projects is reported to have fallen globally from $23.2 billion in the second quarter (April to June) this year to $17.8 million in the third (July to September), prompting Lord Browne, former Chief of BP, to observe: “There has been a tremendous amount of activity. There might have been too much…… It’s producing a lot of casualties. Maybe some of the more unlikely-to-succeed things will just be shut down as a result of tougher times.”

One appealing point in the Gore thesis is to replace the largely unsuccessful Kyoto Protocol by a more effective one. The blame for Kyoto’s failure should rest largely on the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHGs), the US, which has refused to join the Protocol.

Having said that, one must note that the Protocol itself has much to be blamed about. There is little prospect of the US, even with a change of guard at the White House, becoming a party so long as the Protocol remains the way it is.

The only champion of Kyoto, namely the EU, may just about make the cuts called for by it, and that too for the EU as a whole and not individually for every member-country.

Forays beyond 2012 marked by the 20-20-20 proposal of the European Commission, now under discussion, are facing stiff opposition from the East European member-states and Italy. This proposal envisages substitution of conventional energy sources by renewables to the extent of 20 per cent by the year 2020, and simultaneous reduction of GHGs by 20 per cent from the 1990 levels.

Given the divisions that any serious discussion on limiting GHG reductions generates among its members, even the EU would be relieved to see a new a global arrangement replacing Kyoto.

Hence, a new global climate compact needs to be woven seamlessly, not stitched up like Kyoto. The US may very well take the lead in such an exercise. The global community may be sure of Mr Gore, the mentor, being at hand.

(The author is a Former Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. blfeedback@thehindu.co.in)