It has been 17 years since 1994 when nations of the world agreed, in principle, to collectively address the threat of global warming (climate change for the cognoscenti). Since then, under the aegis of this non-binding United Nations ?Framework Convention? on Climate Change (UNFCCC), they have met every year (17 times so far) in a futile attempt to pin down how this collective intent can be translated into meaningful action. As I write, the 17th such meeting or Conference of Parties (COP 17 in international bureaucratese) heads to its pathetic d?nouement at Durban, South Africa.
In the meantime, emissions of heat trapping gases (the so-called greenhouse gases or GHGs) especially carbon dioxide, that the world needs to control and eventually reduce, have grown by leaps and bounds. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), after a small dip in 2009 due to the most serious global economic downturn in 80 years, GHG emissions in 2010 resumed their inexorable upward march to a record level of 30.6 gigatonnes (Gt), up by 1.6 Gt compared to 2009. This figure was also 4.4% higher than the previous record year 2008, when levels reached 29.3 Gt. With growth in heat trapping gases showing no signs of abating, the year 2011 will prove even worse. At the same time, to avoid serious consequences of climate change such as rising sea levels, droughts and cyclones, global GHG emissions must not exceed 32 Gt in the year 2020. Thus, it is clear that the world must agree and soon that greenhouse gas emissions need to ?peak? (stop rising) and then decline to achieve this target.
Unfortunately, as things stand, we will overshoot this target by about 11 Gt. For example, IEA estimates 80% of projected emissions from the power sector in 2020 are already locked in, since they will come from power plants that are currently in place or under construction today. In sum, hope is receding for holding back world temperature to safe levels.
Cut back to Durban and to the COP(out)s that preceded it?Cancun, Copenhagen, Poznan, Bali, etc?an endless list of frequent flier miles accumulating travel destinations, and you would be forgiven for thinking climate negotiators inhabit a different planet!
The script for these fortnight-long annual talking shops is by now depressingly familiar?a build-up of expectations, fractious and acrimonious discussions, on occasion a limp agreement (the Kyoto Protocol for example) and then the crushing realisation (to outsiders) that agreement on meaningful action yet again eludes the community of nations.
Watching the proceedings at COPs from outside there is a sense of bewilderment and frustration at the grandstanding, haggling and preoccupation with minutiae that happens at these events. Most countries reiterate well-worn positions. The south calls for equity based on per capita emissions, transfer of knowhow and money from the north. The latter berates the south, especially the emerging economies of China and India, for not doing enough. And so it goes on from one COP to another COP, Sisyphus like. The jamboree at Durban is over and the climate negotiators head home empty handed with meaningless ?declarations?, ?action plans? (remember Bali?) ?protocols,? and so forth. Next year will be another COP and then another the year after. Like Mr Micawber in David Copperfield, we believe ?something will turn up?. But in effect, nations of the world are haggling about the seating order of deck chairs on the Titanic while it races towards an iceberg!
A particularly egregious example of intransigence is the United States, the world?s biggest cumulative contributor to GHGs?the size of its delegations to these jamborees is inversely proportional to its commitments to cut back GHGs. Attempts by US negotiators and those of western countries in general to score points by pointing to China and India as big GHG emitters ignores that global warming is not caused by current emissions of GHGs (or the flow) but by their accumulated stock in the atmosphere. These gases are long-lived?once released they can stay in the atmosphere for up to 100 years. Thus, a ton of CO2 emitted by industrial revolution-era Britain in the late 1800s is as bad as a ton of CO2 emitted by China or India today. Viewed thus, 71% of cumulative GHG emissions from 1850-2000 are by the rich early industrialisers, namely US (30%), EU (27%), Russia (8%), Japan (4%) and Canada (2%), whereas China and India?s cumulative shares (7.6% and 2.2%, respectively, since 1850) are only half their current shares in annual emissions.
The key mistake by Indian negotiators is their failure to translate their correct insistence on equity into a meaningful negotiating stance. They need to frame the demand for equity in the context of market-based approaches that western economies (and economists) preach so vociferously.
Global emissions trading, whereby each person on the planet would have an equal quota/entitlement to emit GHGs, is one such. While this means India would take on a cap or ceiling on its total emissions, it would be non-binding since India?s current emissions are well below what it would get on the basis of a per capita allocation (especially one that took into account historic contributions). For CO2 alone, while an average American emits 20 tonnes each year, an average Indian emits only 1.1 tonnes and the world average is about 7 tonnes. Cutting the latter amount by half and setting the ?safe? limit at about 3-4 tonnes of CO2 per person would still give India a comfortable buffer.
The advantages to India of putting this radical proposal on the negotiating table cannot be overstated. This paradigm shift would eschew the current incrementalist and haggling approach in favour of a transparent market-based approach. At one stroke, this would put the ball in the court of the north and would lead to large transfer of funds through sale of GHG rights, which are needed to address climate change, and without these being treated as handouts or ?aid?. Perhaps one day our climate negotiators will understand the language of markets and use it to break the current logjam. But time is not on our side or for that matter on the side of Mother Earth.
The author is associate professor with the Delhi School of Economics sgupta@econdse.org
2011 ? On the road to COP17 in Durban
2010 ? Cancun Agreements drafted and largely accepted at the COP16
2009 ? Copenhagen Accord drafted at COP15 in Copenhagen. Countries later submitted emission reduction pledges or mitigation action pledges, all non-binding
2007 ? IPCC?s Fourth Assessment Report released. Climate science enters popular consciousness. At COP13, parties agreed on the Bali roadmap, which charted the way towards a post-2012 outcome
2005 ? Kyoto Protocol enforced. The first meeting of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol (MOP 1) takes place in Montreal
2001 ? Release of IPCC?s Third Assessment Report. Bonn Agreements adopted, based on the Buenos Aires Plan of Action of 1998
1997 ? Kyoto Protocol formally adopted in December at COP3
1996 ? The UNFCCC secretariat is set up to support action under the Convention
1995? The first Conference of the Parties (COP 1) takes place in Berlin
1994 ? UNFCCC enters into force
1992 ? The INC adopts UNFCCC text. At the Earth Summit in Rio, the UNFCCC is opened for signature along with its sister Rio Conventions, UNCBD and UNCCD
1991 ? First meeting of the inter-governmental negotiating committee takes place
1990 ? IPCC?s first assessment report released
1988 ? Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change set up
1979 ? The first World Climate Conference (WCC) takes place
