At the climate conference in Warsaw, New Delhi rightly ensured that developed countries do not ride roughshod over our national interests. But, at home, it needs to do more to protect the environment and contain the impact of climate change processes
Many environmentalists were dismayed by Ms Jayanthi Natarajan replacing Mr Jairam Ramesh as India’s Minister for Environment and Forests. However, this columnist and others must admit that they have both gone on to achieve some important goals — the latter ensured the passage of one of the Government’s landmark Bills through the Upper House although it might have little electoral impact, the former has stood up for India’s rights at the recent round of climate talks in Warsaw, Poland.
However, while standing up for India’s rights now is a good thing, it slightly misses the point. India desperately needs to work towards a solution on greenhouse gas emission. By virtue of having a long coastline, large deserts and ancient glaciers as well as being highly dependent on one of earth’s most remarkable annual meteorological phenomenon, the monsoon, India has a lot to lose from climate change — particularly when you consider that there are 1.2 billion of us.
India is already suffering from the impact of global warming. For instance, there have been severe flash floods in the Himalayas. Warmer seas, particularly in the Bay of Bengal, might mean an extended cyclonic season. While better preparation for some events might mean that fewer people might die, the costs can still be huge in terms of damaged fields, dead livestock and destroyed infrastructure.
It is true that India is one of the world’s biggest polluters. After the US, China and the European Union, we are the fourth largest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet. But, India emits just six per cent of the global output of carbon dioxide annually, well behind China’s 27 per cent and the United States’ 14 per cent. In fact, India’s per capita emissions are among the lowest in the world and this has been our trump card at every negotiating table.
There has been clear hypocrisy by developed countries towards nations like India, China and Brazil when it comes to carbon emissions — from the US not signing reduction treaties to most other countries shifting the goalposts for themselves. With small populations and stiff anti-immigrant policies, many of these countries can afford to be snooty, and it will not be incorrect to say that some of them want to maintain their lifestyle at the cost of poor Indians and Chinese.
But, despite a few quarters of slow economic growth, there is little doubt that Indians’ appetite for electricity and vehicles is not slowing down in the long run. This has already taken a toll on air quality in India: Take-off on a flight from New Delhi airport, and at around 5,000 feet you see the dark, foreboding gunk that lies over the capital. It is no surprise that many children and adults alike suffer from respiratory problems.
Of course, the polluted skies above New Delhi are far from the putrid skies that envelope our large eastern neighbour’s capital, but in this regard there is no need for India to compete with China. But as millions of Indians rise out of poverty and move up the financial table, they will want to buy more and more. Militant environmentalists have attacked the cult of the motor vehicle, but try telling that to someone buying his or her first car. And there will be millions of Indians doing that in the coming decade, although the current smart investments in public transport solutions in some Indian cities mitigate the impact of more cars on the roads.
Also, India’s obstinacy has irritated several other countries suffering from the impact of climate change, deeply dividing the developing world community. Nothing displays this more than our stand on hydro-fluoro carbons, a popular coolant developed after the world was forced to phase out chloro-fluoro carbons which were destroying the Ozone layer. During climate talks in Bangkok, India backed out of this deal, citing costs on the forced adoption of Western technology.
Understanding our stand on forcing developed countries to do more, like Ms Natarajan did in Warsaw, is one thing. But some arguments make little sense. However, in a poor economic environment, with general election around the corner, it would take a brave Government to take decisions that potentially impact the price paid by the Indian consumer.
But possibly the greatest failure of Indian policymakers has been that they have not managed to convince the people at large that the environment is worth saving. For one, there has been the confusion between animal conservation and greater environmental awareness. In the recent past there have been two cases of clear abuse of the environment and little has been done. The first was rampant sand-mining in the districts surrounding New Delhi that was powering the real-estate industry. In the absence of proper rules and regulations, the floodplains were being destroyed.
The other case is even more puzzling: Somehow the adoption of the K Kasturirangan report on saving the ecologically-sensitive Western Ghats has been panned by both environmentalists as ‘not doing enough’, as well as church and political leaders in Kerala for being ‘anti-farmer’. One Catholic cleric even threatened that ‘blood will be spilled’ if the report was implemented.
For every story of fishermen in Gujarat looking after the whale shark, there are many more where there is rampant abuse of the environment by local populations with the backing of political leaders. If our Union leaders are too frightened to take decisions in an election year, local political leaders will not stop raping the earth. If educated men of the cloth believe that saving the environment is wrong, and politicians see vote-bank opportunities in anti-environmentalism, there is not much left to be said.