commentary
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); Swinging from Inaction to (iii) India, in the interest of securing some kind of agreement at the UN summit on Capitulation on Climate Policy climate change in Copenhagen in Decem- ber will agree to the watering down of emission reduction commitments by the T Jayaraman developed countries to well below the tar- gets recommended by the Intergovern- Manmohan Singh’s government fter a decade and a half of inaction mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); appears to be contemplating a and bringing up the rear in global (iv) India will not seek any quid pro quo 180-degree turn to India’s two- A climate change negotiations, India’s from the developed world in terms of adap- climate policy seems all set to swing to the tation financing and technology transfer for decade old position on global and opposite extreme of capitulation to the the developing countries and will be pre- country-wise commitments to demands of the industrialised nations. pared for a considerably lowered financial combat climate change. The Recent media reports, notably in the Times commitment; and (v) India will no longer leaked contents of an of India (19 October 2009) and the Reuters tie its position to that of the G-77 (namely, News Agency (16 October 2009), suggest all developing countries) but will focus on extraordinary communication that important sections of the government the G-20 as its arena of intervention. from Minister of State for of India, led by Minister of State for Envi- To cap it all (the pun is certainly intended), Environment and Forests Jairam ronment and Forests Jairam Ramesh, are the minister’s letter suggests that India’s Ramesh to Prime Minister pushing a radical rewriting of India’s climate change positions must be “prag- climate policy. matic and constructive”, that India “must Manmohan Singh indicate that As reported by Times of India, some of listen more and speak less” in global nego- the new thinking is only a thinly the key changes that are being pushed are tiations and, most strikingly, that India’s veiled proposal to barter India’s the subject of a letter addressed by Jairam current climate policy positions are not in energy and developmental future Ramesh to Prime Minister Manmohan keeping with “India’s aspirations to perma- Singh. While Manmohan Singh himself has nent membership of the Security Council”. for an illusory superpower status not addressed this policy shift publicly, it is In this set of critical giveaways, the first that would contribute little to the clear from the minister’s Reuters interview three are clearly the most damaging ones. nation and its people. The focus that the formulation of a new policy direc- The idea that a unilateral declaration of on the new thinking is on the tion has the explicit sanction of the prime emission reduction commitments by India minister. In a press release on 20 October, would be of value in global negotiations is accommodation of developed the environment minister has sought to entirely misplaced. It is deeply disturbing, nations’ interests on climate assuage public concern by reiterating that however, that this misunderstanding reach- change rather than finding means the fundamentals of India’s climate policy es the highest levels of policymaking in this to force them to live up to their had not been seriously altered. However, the country. Even if India were to undertake statement does not address key, specific unilateral commitments, they are of little commitments. concerns that have been reported in the use if the bulk of the world’s rich industria- media, and other concerns that have also lised nations (who have contributed 76% of arisen from Jairam Ramesh’s statements the current stock of greenhouse gases themselves in various media interviews. (GHGs), in the atmosphere and contributed roughly 52% of all GHG emissions in 2005) Key Changes Mooted continue to refuse to undertake the drastic The key changes that form part of the emission reductions that are part of their 180-degree turn in climate policy that is historic responsibility. Unilateralism of this currently under way appear to be the fol- kind merely sanctions the continued occu- lowing: (i) India will declare unilateral pation by the developed nations of more climate change mitigation actions without than their fair share of the global atmo- seeking any quid pro quo or conditionality spheric commons (in terms of the available on emission reduction commitments by the space for GHG emissions). Clearly the task developed world; (ii) India will agree to before India, that is outside the ranks of the monitoring of its commitments in some the biggest emitters by a long shot (Indian T Jayaraman ([email protected]) is at form, even if not as formal reporting require- annual per capita emissions of carbon the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. ments to the United Nations Framework dioxide are roughly 1.2 tonnes compared
8 october 24, 2009 vol xliv no 43 EPW Economic & Political Weekly commentary to 22 tonnes for the United States and by referring to “legally binding commit- nations. Equally it also represents an at- approximately 4.3 tonnes for China), is to ments” on mitigation by the former as op- tempt to evade the direct responsibility of find a means of curbing these emissions. posed to “commitments” by the latter. The developed nations to develop new green Unilateralism is fine talk but clearly of ittlel proposal also distinguishes between na- technologies. In critical high-emission use in protecting the Indian people from tional actions and commitments, leaving sectors such as power generation, many the impacts of unrestrained global warm- unclear the exact distinction between the European Union countries like the United ing, if such indeed is the minister’s motiva- two kinds of commitments. Apart from the Kingdom look forward to carbon offsets tion for unilateralism. considerable ambiguity in the definition of rather than the development of new tech- commitments there is also further uncer- nologies as the main option for mitigation. ‘Realism’ tainty in the manner of their implementa- The developing countries have a sufficiently It is clear that in the new climate policy tion through so-called “national sched- onerous task in developing new low-carbon framework, the focus is on the accommo- ules”. These national schedules are to have pathways of development without the dation of developed nations’ interests a common format for all countries, which additional burden of carbon offsets. rather than finding means to force them to will be required, among other things, to Another unilateral initiative that would live up to their commitments. The watch- submit proposals for long-term pathways have been worth considering is a commit- words under this new policy, as proposed of emissions reductions and proposed ment to compulsory non-exclusionary by Manmohan Singh (and emphasised by peaking years for emissions. licensing of all “green technologies” in the Jairam Ramesh to Reuters) are “flexibility” A detailed discussion of the Australian manner of the provisions already available and “realism”. In practice this implies that proposal is clearly beyond the scope of for essential drugs and pharmaceuticals. India would accept much lower emission this comment. But it is clear that the Or to go further, a unilateral declaration reduction targets on the part of the Annex I blithe attitude of the minister, dismissing of the non-availability of strong intellec- countries. Indeed the minister has suggested detailed consideration of its serious impli- tual property rights protection for “green that even targets as low as 25% reduction cations as “theological objections”, is technologies” could have been put on the with respect to 1990 annual emission levels wholly misplaced. agenda. It is noteworthy that such initia- by the year 2020 would be acceptable. This The acceptance of the Australian pro- tives do not have any place in the current is in marked contrast to the earlier Indian posal together with the readiness to pro- surge of unilateralism on the part of the stand of insisting on the IPCC recommend- vide unilateral commitments on emissions government of India in climate policy. ed figure of 40% reduction by the year reductions without any quid pro quo from While clearly it would be politically 2020 with respect to 1990 emission levels. the developed nations is tantamount to unacceptable in India that the country The government of India is clearly get- closing India’s future energy and develop- undertakes any kind of binding emission ting ready to accept a considerable rewrit- mental options. commitments that is subject to UNFCCC ing of the Kyoto Protocol by the developed and Kyoto Protocol style verification, economies in the post-2012 period. Ac- One-sided Unilateralism there are clearly proposals afoot for India cording to the minister as reported by the It bears emphasis that this new unilateralism to accede to some kind of verification for Times of India: is of an entirely one-sided kind, with an its mitigation actions without any hint of We must welcome initiatives to bring the US overwhelming emphasis on cooperation independent or multilateral verification into the mainstream, if need be through a with the global North rather than paying requirements for the advanced industrial special mechanism, without diluting basic equal attention to attempts to force clear nations. The Australian proposal has Annex 1/non-Annex distinctions. If the Aus- commitments from them. One may agree made this clear in its tying up of monitor- tralian Proposal of a schedule maintains this basic distinction and nature of differential with the government of India that the Kyoto ing and verification with the provisions obligations we should have no great theo- Protocol need not be considered to have for adaptation financing and assistance logical objections. been inscribed in stone. But what is not on for technology transfer. The touching concern for the world’s the agenda of the government of India is foremost emitter and the only nation to have any initiative that would exert the slightest Sensible Independent Proposals had climate denial enshrined as national pressure on the Annex I countries. Democratic and progressive opinion in this policy is striking, as is the willingness to re- One such initiative could have been a country has for some time now argued, write Kyoto to suit this nation. More disturb- clear and forthright statement on carbon driven also by scientific opinion, that large ing though is the new found enthusiasm for offsets, insisting that developed nations’ developing countries also need to play a the “so-called” Australian proposal. It is a mitigation actions must take place at home proactive role in climate change mitigation, characteristic case of the Manmohan Singh and that no offsets could be included as part even though they have little or no responsi- government’s penchant, as in the case of the of domestic mitigation accounting. It is not bility in creating the problem of global nuclear deal, to be satisfied with the word- able that the minister’s proposals are totally warming. In particular it has become clear, as play of international agreements ignoring silent on the question of carbon offsets a recent analysis published in this journal their substantive content and implications. that represent a significant attempt by the showed (Tejal Kanitkar et al, EPW, 10 Octo- The Australian proposal ostensibly differ- developed nations to pass on their emis- ber 2009), that large developing countries entiates between Annex I and non-Annex I sion reduction burden to the developing have a substantial role to play by lowering
Economic & Political Weekly EPW october 24, 2009 vol xliv no 43 9 commentary their growth rate of emissions from their the country’s representatives), also piggy- by its foreign policy orientation on climate current growth rates by at least 25% by 2030. backed on the previous Bush administra- change, except that now the emphasis has Subsequently, they have also to participate tion’s climate denial stance by undertak- shifted to playing to the Obama administra- in emissions reduction in absolute terms ing little proactive efforts to break the tion’s concerns and those of the rest of the between the years 2030 and 2040. Amongst deadlock in global talks on this issue. It G-8. The illusion that India’s aspirations for these countries, China has a special role also pointedly avoided any criticism of the superpower status would be served by capi and needs to initiate action at an earlier Bush administration from the highest lev- tulation on key contentious issues in climate date than other developing countries. els of the government on the issue of cli- change negotiations is a laughable one. From this point of view they had been mate change. It also progressively agreed One of the most disturbing aspects of critical of the earlier negotiating stance of to several market-driven, private sector the proposals is the suggestion that India the government of India that tended to dominated strategies for combating climate break ranks with the developing nations as view the climate change issue as a foreign change that were being advocated by the a whole. The suggestion that India should policy issue rather than a critical issue United States and the rest of the global focus on the G-20 in negotiations in reality related to the development trajectory of the North, many of which were far from being would mean getting into the orbit of the global South. beneficial to developing countries. In many G-8 in terms of climate policy, a move with However, they have also always empha- ways, as one can argue, climate policy was profoundly negative consequences for the sised that from the basic perspective of seen as an arena for concessions to the US poor in India and the developing world as climate equity and equitable access to the when pressure mounted in areas such as a whole. India’s climate policy must be global atmospheric commons, any mitiga- nuclear policy. founded on the development needs of the tion action by the large developing nations majority of its population and the needs of should be conditional on appropriate US Shift, Indian Shift India’s future development. The proposals actions by the industrialised nations, such With the entry of the Barack Obama admini in their current form are only a thinly as have been outlined above. stration that has a proactive attitude to cli- veiled proposal to barter India’s energy and It was also clear that India, despite the mate change, the Manmohan Singh has developmental future for an illusory super- rhetoric at the global climate negotiating had to shift its stance. However, it is clear power status that would contribute little to table (undoubtedly sincerely conducted by that the government of India is still driven the nation and its people.
INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH UNIVERSITY ENCLAVE UNIVERSITY OF DELHI (NORTH CAMPUS) DELHI-110007
Applications are invited for two Junior Consultants on contract in the consolidated salary range of Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 45,000/- per month depending upon qualification and experience in theWHO project on “Health Economics and Financing Observatory” for a period of one year.
Essential qualifications:
• High Second Class Master’s degree in Economics/Statistics/Population Science. • Minimum 2 years’ research experience in the area of health sector. • The candidate should have strong quantitative skills, with experience in survey research and skills in handling large data bases in the context of the health sector.
Preference will be given to candidates with good record of publications.
The Institute reserves the right not to fill up the above positions, if circumstances so warrant. Currently employed candidates should apply through proper channel. Other things being equal, SC/ST/OBC candidates will be preferred.
Short-listed candidates will be called for interview.
Applocations, with full details, names of three referees accompanied by attested copies of certificates, mark sheets etc. and copies of published research papers at least two should reach the Academic Programmes Officer, Institute of Economic Growth, University Enclave, University of Delhi (North Campus) Delhi - 110 007 latest by October 31, 2009.
DIRECTOR
10 october 24, 2009 vol xliv no 43 EPW Economic & Political Weekly