Climate of Development

America and Europe are among the largest polluters in the world. They polluted their way to economic might and political glory. Now they want the developing countries to foot the bill.

Md Shafey Danish
From the 7th of December to the 18th of December world leaders would gather for a summit in Copenhagen to thrash out an agreement on climate change. They would seek to put numbers and timelines on the table to cut their greenhouse gas emissions to levels that the world can sustain. These cuts would preferably be legally binding, but the prospect of that now looks dim. If an agreement actually materializes it would be one of the defining agreements of this century, as it would determine the economic paths signatory countries would take. The global economy is so intimately connected that even those who do not sign on would be greatly affected by the change. India, as the 6th largest polluter in absolute terms and an aspirant global power, has a huge stake in the outcome of the talks. Its position is closely aligned with the collective stand of the group of developing countries in which it plays a leading role. Developing countries have three main demands. a) They maintain that the ‘polluter pays principle’ should be applied. The West, which historically is the largest polluter, should bear the major share of the burden of reducing GHG emissions, by taking binding cuts of upto 40% below 1990 level. b) Developing countries believe that they should not be asked to make binding emission cuts, as this would impact their growth and development. c) India and other ‘developing’ countries, including China, want the West to shell out money and pass on green technology to developing countries to help them shift to a greener economic model. The money being asked is to the tune of USD 100 billion per year. Why India is Right India has justice firmly on its side. America and Europe are among the largest polluters in the world. They polluted their way to economic might and political glory. Yet, now that it’s time to pay up for all that pollution, they want the developing countries to foot the bill. Or at least pay a significant share of it. Why should India or China fall for it? Also, if India starts to take binding emission cuts its growth will surely be affected. This will help maintain status quo in world power equations, relegating India, if not China, to second rung. A slow growth would also mean that India would have less means at its disposal to pull out its millions from the grip of poverty. India wants to have emissions calculated on per capita basis. On that basis we pollute 1/20 of the average American. We pollute more, so says our government, because we are a large country. Why This Stand Won’t Work One of the reasons America cited for not being a part of the Kyoto Protocol was that it placed no obligations on major polluters like India and China. It continues to maintain that stand. Any climate deal is bound to fail if America, the second biggest polluter in the world, does not join in. While some money has been pledged by developed countries, EU has promised between USD 7 bn and USD 22 bn, it does not look likely that they would shell out a USD 100bn each year. Major countries like China and Brazil have already announced targets of greenhouse gas reduction. Brazil would cut by 36% from its “business-as-usual” levels while China would reduce carbon intensity by 40%-45% from 2005 levels. This weakens India’s position and builds pressure on it to announce some target cut. While calculating emissions on a per capita basis is a good idea, it hides the significant fact that large parts of the population are so poor that their carbon footprint is negligible. Those who pollute, pollute as much as people in other developed nations. What is the harm in making this small percentage of people reduce their carbon footprint? We are effectively giving concession to our rich in the name of our poor. India’s growth will be impacted, but it would not significantly affect the poor. The growth model, far from working towards poverty alleviation, has actually exacerbated it. The theory that says that if you create wealth at the top it is bound to trickle down, is till debatable. A fair share of wealth has so far not trickled down to the countryside, where the farmers are committing suicides. India’s problem is more of wealth distribution than wealth creation. Why India Needs a Deal The impact of climate change is going to be asymmetrical. Some countries are going to be fried more in the global warming heat than others. Unfortunately India, which is surrounded on three sides by the ocean and has glaciers in the north that are threatened by climate change, will be among countries that would suffer more. Actually, if you follow the cycle of floods in some parts of the country and drought in other, you would know that we are already suffering. We must cut emissions and force others to cut; otherwise we will end up paying more. Global warming and the changes it imposes on us go far beyond the need to cut emissions. It actually requires a change in the way we see prosperity. It requires a change in an economic model that brainwashes consumers into buying things they do not really need so that an illusion of ‘growth’ can be maintained. It requires us to cut all that waste that not only litters our streets, our parks, our fields but also our rivers and oceans. This mostly synthetic waste is slowly choking our environment. Sooner or later, we have to move to a simpler and healthier lifestyle. Why not begin doing it at Copenhagen?