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 R ecent 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- c limate 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 d ioxide 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- a pproximately 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 l ittle 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. l icensing 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 u nacceptable in India that the country The government of India is clearly get- closing India’s future energy and develop- u ndertakes 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 deve loped 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 a ccede 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 i ndependent 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 K yoto 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.