Climate games rich countries play

“Shell, no!” screamed the banners and placards. It was still cold in May in Seattle, but more discomforting than the weather was President Obama’s okay to the oil major, Shell, for drilling in the pristine waters of Alaska.

Three months later, and just about a week after Obama unveiled his “climate plan”, Shell’s icebreaker ship, Fennica, left Portland for Alaska to mark the beginning of an activity that puts not only the environment but also Shell’s own reputation at risk.

Shell’s Arctic adventure is more than an environmental mis-step. From the perspective of the developing countries, it is a symbol of rich world’s double-talk, and evidence that supports the view that governments are pawns to corporate interests.

Nobody disputes that the climate change problem was primarily caused by the developed world. Before the industrial revolution began, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 270 parts per million; today it is 400 million, and rising by 2 million every year. Eighty per cent of the increase came from the developed countries.

On the back of such a record, the rich countries are expected to take the lead in reducing emissions and also pay the developing world for doing the same. The developed world has failed on both these counts.

All countries are expected to announce their voluntary emission reduction commitments, called ‘intended nationally determined contributions’ or INDC. None of the rich countries has come up with a commitment consistent with the call of scientists, which is that the developed world should bring down their emission levels between 25 and 40 per cent by 2020. The US is the world’s biggest polluter, emitting 21 tonnes of carbon per person per year (against India’s 1.6 tonnes ).

The EU’s commitment to emission reductions – 40 per cent from 1990 levels by 2030 — looks better. However, several observers, such as those at the think-tank Climate Action Network, are suspicious of a technicality called ‘land use, land use change and forestry’, on which EU has been ambivalent. Apart from the technicality, there are negative signals coming out of EU’s member countries.

The UK seems to be drifting on its own. It has said it aims to reduce emissions by “at least 80 per cent” from 1990 levels — by 2050. However, in a joint letter to Prime Minister Cameron in July, several green groups cited many instances of the government’s anti-green policies. Since May, the Cameron government has ended subsidies for wind and solar projects, raised taxes on renewable energy, abruptly cancelled a ‘zero carbon homes’ plan, lifted a ban on fracking for shale and brought in vehicle tax rules so that the most polluting and most energy efficient cars pay the same after the first year.

Australia has removed its ‘carbon tax’, slashed renewable energy targets and directed Clean Energy Finance Corporation to cease financing wind farms and rooftop solar. Prime Minister Tony Abbot dislikes the “unnecessary commitments to renewables” and believes “coal is good for mankind”. In August, he announced INDC of 26-28 percent over 2005, by 2030, when Australia’s own Climate Change Authority had recommended a target of 40-60 per cent cut from 2000 levels by 2030.

Meena Raman of the Malaysia-based Third World Network notes that the low emission targets of the developed countries means a “shifting of burden on to developing countries”. Do the developed countries at least pay for such shifted burden? Shell, no. It was agreed in Cancun in 2010 that the developed countries will mobilise $100 billion a year by 2020. Even then, there was an outcry that the amount was inadequate. Now, five years down the line, the total commitments to the Green Climate Fund is $10.2 billion, of which only $5 billion has been actually received.

On top of it, ‘greenwashing’ is in evidence. Funds that would have come to projects even in the normal course are brought under the definition of ‘green’, and as a results no fresh funds are mobilised for environment-friendly projects.

For instance, the World Bank funding for the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor project is called ‘green’ because the freight train track would take vehicles off the road.

If the definition of green funds is enlarged to include projects that would have anyway received finance, there will be no meaningful funds flowing into projects specifically meant for climate mitigation.

Which means developing nations will have to figure out how to fund genuinely green initiatives. Again.

COMMENT NOW