The trouble is that we take too much pressure from first world countries. It may have to do with our inner complexes as a former colonial entity. Our articulation of our position on climate change, for instance, is too defensive, and thus, enormously weak
Even before the annual ‘climate change’ negotiating conference in lima this December, the United Nations Secretary General has convened a Climate Summit on September 23 in New York in order to draw out more pledges for the Green Fund and to provide a push for a meaningful global agreement on climate change in 2015. But the US has already made it clear that it would not be pledging any funds and that it would like others to do more first. In view of this and given the generally dismissive attitude of the Western countries towards the Green Fund, which has resulted in a progressive dilution of the concept, it is unlikely that the summit will produce any worthwhile result. So far, the $100 billion or so fund is largely empty, with only a small contribution from Germany. Hopes of a quick capitalisation might, therefore, not materialise.
The fact of the matter is that developed countries, despite their loud pretensions, hardly appear interested in carrying forward the process in a sincere manner; rather they exhaust their energies in putting more incremental pressure on the developing countries even using specious argument that the developing countries were more vulnerable because of the non-availability of requisite financial and technological resources to deal with the climate change depredations. Established facts with regard to their own historical responsibilities in having polluted the atmosphere and their continued high per capita greenhouse gas emission levels are conveniently forgotten.
I am reminded of the World Energy Congress in Rome in 2007, where the leader of the Indian delegation was virtually ‘gheraoed’ by Western media persons who accused India of being the main culprit for the impending climate bomb. How ironical (!) since India’s per capita carbon emission of around 1.1 tonnes is nowhere comparable to over 20 tonnes in the US and well over 10 tonnes in many of the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development countries. And if this alone were not enough, we have gone to affirm, quite unnecessarily, that India will not allow its per capita GHG emission level to exceed that of developed countries’ average. Quite clearly the Western agenda is cleverly orchestrated by their Governments, the NGOs, their media houses and their corporate organisations who stand to gain the most from widest application of new green technologies patented by them. They are of course fully cognizant that even though the old divisions in the world have given way to multi-vectoral linkages in the emerging multi-polar world, serious faultlines continue to exist and climate change negotiations represent one such area.
The trouble is that we take too much pressure from the developed countries. It may have to do with our inner complexes as a former colonised nation. Our approach and the articulation of our position (read any Government website) is too defensive, and thus weak. The developed countries have completely turned the climate agenda on its head in the last 10 years or so. An extensive range of issues are on the table — highly technical and jargonised. This is of course a deliberate ploy by the entrenched vested interests to move the debate away from basic fundamental issues. The strategy is simple: Get the negotiations entangled in an unmanageably large number of inane and rather technical high sounding complicated issues so as to leave no time for the basic stuff.
let us examine the fundamental issues. First and foremost is that, whatever yardstick one adopts in measuring environmental degradation, it has to be a factor of the size of the population, since emission levels are directly related to human activities and developmental projects meant for their advancement. As such, the only acceptable benchmark is the per capita emission level. Why are we not raising it more assertivelyIJ The second is that the problem is caused by accumulated GHG emissions in the atmosphere by developed countries. This is well documented and accepted. Current emissions are only a part of the problem. People in developing countries have the right to the same process of development as in the developed nations.
Finally, the big question: Who should pay for redressal of the problemIJ It logically follows that those who are historically guilty of causing pollution and those who have the capacity should pay. It was accepted that developing countries could not afford the high cost to be incurred on remedial measures and on adoption of new technologies. As such, they were to be helped through a global Green Fund. There were also talks of providing access to technology through a common pool. That was admittedly a naïve suggestion, but it nevertheless underscored the argument that the developing countries needed help not just for themselves but in pursuing a larger objective of global climate well being. large, developing countries impact much more on climate change parameters because of the size of projects to be undertaken by them. As such it is not logical to exclude them from the list of beneficiaries.Suppose we were to set up a coal thermal power project of 1,000 MW. If a conventional project costs around $1 billion, using the green (environment-friendly) technology would probably cost $1.25 billion. Who bears the extra incremental cost which eventually gets reflected in the cost of electricity supplied to the consumers in IndiaIJ Clearly any obligation to adopt newer technology which may not even be available in India places an extra burden on our people. We just cannot bear that burden on our own.
A recent report by the Global Commission on Economy and Climate has concluded that efforts to reduce climate change and aspirations of developing countries for economic growth are not mutually contradictory. Environment friendly projects can both reduce carbon emissions and create jobs. Granted, but where do extra funds, the new technology come fromIJ Would that not put additional unwarranted burden on the developing countries and fatten the purse strings of the business corporations in western countries which have developed and patented those technologies.
International relations is not about garnering goodwill all the time or in playing to the galleries in world assemblies. It is about steadfast pursuance of our national interests. We must show the requisite courage and self-confidence to remain firmly rooted to our basic position on this important issue. In the past, our delegation has been handed down a rather untenable mandate ‘don’t get isolated’. That is hardly the position which can safeguard our core interests, let alone enhance our standing in the world. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has shown the way in breaking from the past in dealing with Pakistan. We want to see the same level of confidence resonate in our other engagements on the international front.
(The writer is a former Indian High Commissioner to South Africa)