The annual UN Climate Change Conference that took place in Bonn brought together the stakeholders to discuss global progress in dealing with climate change. BHASKAR SINHA discusses whether climate change is real and manmade
The biggest debate is: Whether climate change is real and manmadeIJ On one side there is the most powerful nation on Earth, — the United States led by Donald Trump and on another side, there are verifiable scientific evidences. We aren’t here to criticise anyone but look for scientific evidences. It’s true that Trump has obligation to his constituency and his followers. So the same obligation had lord Buddha to his followers or lord Jesus or Prophet Mohammed, but let the good sense prevail. One of the very trustworthy evidences comes from NASA which proclaims that 97 per cent of climate researchers approve that global warming was owed to human actions.
As per IPCC, the scientific proof for global warming is indisputable. In almost 95 per cent likelihood, the present climatic change is due to the consequence of human actions with the advancement of the industrial revolution through utilisation of fossil fuels. NASA sent numerous satellites for a considerable period and amassed a humongous body of data, divulges the signs of a changing climate. The heat-trapping nature or glasshouse effect of carbon dioxide and other gases was established in the mid-19th century. There is no doubt that compounded levels of greenhouse gases caused the Earth to warm.
The globe’s average surface temperature has amplified about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit over the last two centuries. A large amount of the warming occurred in the last part of the twentieth century and the first part of the present century. The year 2016 was the hottest year on record. Notably, 2017 heat index is no mean feat indeed. It’s the second warmest. Mass human death due to climatic erraticness is no more uncommon nowadays which now happens regularly in the northern Indian part at the height of the winter seasons. In Europe, high-temperature death has been seen now more often. Flood devastations are more common now in the UK, Germany or France.
The fallouts of this climate change are manifold, like: warming oceans, dwindling ice sheets, glacial withdraw, dwindled snow cover, sea level upsurge, lessening Arctic sea ice, dangerous events (Tsunami, Harvey, Irma, Maria, and Nate just to name a few), ocean acidification, etc. The Press and Civil Society are very much vigil and call all governments to take the task in hand seriously.
By logic, climate change is real, but we are critically discussing the international climate law regime. By nature’s law, the powerful, resourceful and mighty is ruling the Earth. Humans have the best intellect in the animal world and by far the most resourceful and they are so clever, needy and greedy that they are robbing other’s resources also. By a conservative estimate based on the present reserve and consumption ratio, the resource scenario is that Coal will last little over 100 years, Gas reserve for 55 years and Crude oil is just 56 years (World Energy Resources Survey 2013).
We have no choice other than to conserve our resources. We need to use our resources judiciously, minimise the wastage and maximise the efficiency. Also, we need to find alternative resources. This is the crux of sustainability. We need to keep as many resources as possible for the posterity. By conserving resources and improving efficiency, triple bottom lines will enhance. In the societal side, by arresting the climate change and global warming, we can save our planet, the ecosystem and the society we live in; in the commercial side, cost of production/ service will be reduced through attending more efficiency in the processes; in the environmental side, as we reduce the more burning of fossil fuels, less CO2 will be released and less global warming will happen and there will be less releases of other obnoxious gasses and as a result less pollution will engulf us.
The international directive on ‘no-harm rule’ makes a State is duty-bound to avoid, decrease and limit the danger of environmental damage to other states. It was seen as a triumph when Canadian Government had to shell compensation when one of its smelter caused severe Sulphur Dioxide damage to the neighbouring US country.
Principle 21 of the 1972 Stockholm Declaration emphasised states sovereign rights of exploiting Natural Resources, but also provided caution not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. 1992 Rio Declaration and UNFCCC have accepted this principle in verbatim. How to obtain the legal status of the atmosphereIJ The atmosphere is a fluid composition as per its physical structure and character. The International labour Court focuses mainly on political boundaries and to IlC ‘trans boundary’ is a vague subject to try on. The present UNFCCC code on ‘no harm rule’ needs to be given more legal teeth to be put errant nations to task.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was dealing the issue of Climate Change since 1972. Additional protocols came in 1997 as Kyoto Protocol, in 2012 Doha Amendment and in 2015 the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement was somehow a pragmatic approach towards climate change mitigation. Post 1992, UNFCCC was mandated to stabilize greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere through multilateral negotiations. The last two decades saw several flips- flops on legally binding rules and regulations and on how to rein in global emissions. Then came Kyoto Protocol (1997) and subsequent Clean Development Mechanism, still emissions of the main GHGs (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) rose steadily over this period.
Kyoto Protocol required industrialised nations to reduce emissions by an average of 5 per cent against 1990 levels which were not obligatory to developing nations. Though the Kyoto Protocol was only a baby step for mitigating climate change, much like the Montreal Protocol on substances depleting the ozone layer, it was supposed to be strengthened further. The 2009 Copenhagen Conference slumped again which was planned to create a more effective inheritor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. Industrialised nations that had resisted with Kyoto Protocol were unwilling to subject themselves again to another set of strict targets.
As a result, Canada retracted from the treaty while Japan and Russia announced they would not enter into new obligations. Although seen as a disappointment at the time, the Copenhagen conference (COP-15) prospered in laying the ground for a fresh attempt. Bypassing the thorny issue of internationally approved and legally obligatory emissions targets, Barack Obama from the United States and Wen Jiabao form China produced a replacement deal that also encompassed mitigation efforts by Manmohan Singh from India and other world leaders settled to a system of voluntary vows as the basis for future climate action. The COP-21 of UNFCCC was held in Paris in December 2015. COP-21 overruled the mandatory emission reduction. Instead, the Paris Agreement allowed countries to set their own level of climate change mitigation goal. It created a framework for making voluntary promises that can be judged and evaluated internationally. It recognised that none of the major nations can be compelled into drastic emissions cuts. It implants country pledges in an international system of climate liability. In a way, the Paris climate summit extended the chance of more robust international cooperation. The Paris agreement would come into intensity when 55 countries influencing to at least 55 per cent of overall global emissions endorse the deal. So far, 61 countries had put down their instruments of consent, concurrence or authorisation, accounting for 47.8 per cent of worldwide emissions.
Where lays the problemIJ Switching fossil fuels is more taxing in some areas as alternative sources are not abundant or easily retrofitable yet. To some, removing carbon out of the global production, trade and investment is just unimaginable. Though all main emitters have made a public pledge to contain global warming, it is problematic to transform this into collective reality. Climate change mitigation requires a sizeable financing in the short run and waiting patiently for the long-term result. Which elected Government has the guts for substantial direct spending, mostly given the briefness of election mandate (four or five years at the most)IJ Additionally, climate change does not distress all countries equally. low-lying island states (like Maldives, Kiribati, Fiji, Nauru and Tuvalu) face an existential danger from the rising sea levels while others, especially countries near the Arctic Circle (like Greenland, Canada, etc.), may encounter greater agricultural harvest and far easier access to natural resources as a result of the melting of the permafrost.
In any case, the high degree of uncertainty in predicting long-term climate change and the costs and benefits associated with it makes it difficult for governments to assess where their national interests lie. (Falkner, R)
In 2014, China made the largest financing in renewable energy sources estimated at US$83.3 billion. China had ramped up solar-cell production from 50 megawatts of generation capacity in 2004 to 23,000 megawatts in 2012. Benefiting from a shift towards shale gas and a turnaround of previous emissions trends, the then US President Obama used regulatory authorities to shift energy production away from Coal.
In November 2014, the United States and China, the principal emitters of GHGs, authorised a joint agreement on climate change. Other key emitters likewise came onward to make their own guarantees. The Indian Government deliberated to outdo the renewable energy goals set in Paris by almost half and three years before the schedule. A draft 10-year energy blueprint envisaged that 57 per cent of India’s aggregate electricity capacity will derive from non-fossil fuel supplies by 2027. The Paris climate accord aim was 40 per cent by 2030. India credits for about 4.5 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. No sensible Great Nation desired to be left out of the newly transpired climate agreement.
Paris Agreement approach was friendlier to both developed and developing countries. Whereas developed countries ‘should carry on taking the leadership by accommodating economy-wide unrestricted emission cutback targets’, developing countries ‘should continue refining their mitigation efforts’ and are ‘urged’ moving over time en route for the kind of emissions reduction that relate to the industrialized countries (Paris Article 4(4)).
Much of the Paris Agreement’s hypothetical impact continued to be established in forthcoming COP negotiations. Though Paris was a breakthrough event, it did not ‘mend’ the climate conundrum. International climate negotiation had decisively seized up to the veracity of the global warming problem, which necessitated a long-term political determination to drive global financing in the route of a low carbon economic outlook. Paris offered a more pragmatic tactic to realising this vision and the green journey had begun. The COP-22 in Marrakech saw bonhomie among all world leaders both developing and developed, except the US.
As the present US President had a divergent view, it was understandable. Although at his home not everyone is amused by his superficial judgment. (Buncombe, A) Trump had rejected man-made climate change hypothesises. He withdrew the US from the 195 nations Paris Accord this year which was a severe blow to multilateral cooperation in Climate Change Management. Definitely, there would be a power vacuum, but it won’t be a surprise if China, India, EU or BRICS will join hands together to take the climate management leadership further. In November 2017, in the Bonn UNFCCC Climate Summit (COP-23), a new leadership pattern emerged.