|
The facts :
|
* India is the fifth largest emitter of greenhouse gases, behind China, the United States, the European Union and Russia.
|
* Its annual carbon dioxide emission is in the range of 1.2 to 1.4 billion tonnes. Its annual greenhouse gas emission (CO2 plus five other gases, including methane) is in the range of 1.6 to 1.8 billion tonnes.
|
* India's per capita emission is about 1.2 tonnes per year. That's about one fourth of the global average, about one-tenth of the emissions of developed countries and about one-third of China's.
|
* Between 1990 and 2004, India's carbon dioxide emissions grew by about 7 per cent a year on an average.
|
India's traditional argument:
|
* Development and poverty reduction is its primary and over-riding priority even as it shares responsibility for contributing to global efforts to contain temperature rise and climate change. It is, therefore, in no position to cap or reduce its emissions, though it is working towards slowing the growth of its emissions.
|
| * Reducing greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation) is the sole responsibility of Annex-I countries (developed nations), as the Kyoto Protocol says. India will take mitigation efforts only if the developed world supports it with technology transfer and finance. |
* India has already come up with a National Action Plan on Climate Change in line with its responsibility under the Bali roadmap. Several other steps, including a new building code, fuel efficiency standards and massive afforestation, have also been initiated. However, these domestic actions are not open to international scrutiny.
|
* Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has given an assurance that even as its total emissions grow, India will never allow its per capita emissions to rise above the average per capita emissions of the developed world. |
A shift?
|
In the run-up to the Copenhagen summit, however, India has displayed a lot of flexibility and made a series of unilateral offers.
|
* 20-25 per cent cuts in carbon intensity by 2020 over 2005 levels: this was announced last Thursday as a "non-binding" domestic target.
|
* India also agreed to tell the world about the amount of emission reductions that its domestic actions were likely to lead to by a certain year. It was not prepared to do so earlier. These numbers, however, cannot be treated as internationally binding targets.
|
* Two degree statement in Italy: At the Major Economies Forum earlier this year, India signed on a declaration that called on all the signatories to work towards limiting the global rise in temperatures to within 2 degrees centigrade from the pre-industrial levels. This created a controversy because some interpreted the declaration as indirectly imposing emission cuts on India. But the MEF declaration is not a legally binding document.
|
* India has also offered to report its emission status to the international community more frequently than it is required to do under law. This will allow the world to track the results of India's domestic actions. |
| NOTE : |
Representatives of 192 countries are meeting in one of the most widely anticipated international conferences in Copenhagen starting from 7th Dec 09. They will try and hammer out an agreement that, many hope, will save the planet from the fallouts of global warming and climate change. With the world attention focused on Copenhagen, here is what you should know. |
| Why we should be scared, very scared, of global warming? |
Science says that the average temperature on earth has been rising rapidly. And it says this is the result of growing concentrations of 'greenhouse gases' that are emitted whenever any fuel is burnt to produce energy. Science also says that if something is not done immediately to stop the increase in the concentrations of these gases, there will be catastrophic consequences in the next few decades. Glaciers will melt, sea levels will rise, low-lying areas will be submerged, crops will be damaged, extreme weather events like cyclones and storms will become more frequent. In short, the world will become a difficult place to live in and millions of people may lose their lives. |
| What's the solution? |
| Since the problem has been caused by excess GHGs, the solution is to reduce the emission of GHGs. |
| Simple, isn't it? |
Not quite. Industries have to operate, vehicles have to run and people have to use appliances. Developing countries like India need more and more energy to power their industries and increase other economic activities. Developed countries might not need to increase their energy consumption now but their current consumption is already very high. It's a vicious cycle. Development needs more industries and machines, but these lead to increased emissions. |
| Is there a golden mean? |
A middle path has to be found so that emissions can be reduced but not at the cost of development. Excess consumption and wastage of energy has to be prevented. More efficient technologies have to be found. If possible, ways have to be devised to absorb GHGs so that they don't accumulate in the atmosphere. Nature offers such a solution in trees, which absorb carbon dioxide and are therefore very good carbon sinks and are good for reducing GHG concentrations. |
| So what will the Copenhagen meet do about the problem? |
It is expected to come up with an agreement that will make it legally binding for rich and developed countries to reduce their GHG emissions by specific amounts by a certain date, possibly 2020. In fact, such an international agreement already exists. It is called the Kyoto Protocol that makes it mandatory for a group of rich countries to reduce their collective emissions by 5.2 per cent from their 1990 levels by 2012. The Copenhagen meet is expected to fix bigger targets on these countries for a period beyond 2012 and till 2020. |
| Why should the rich pay more? |
Well, it's only fair since they created the problem in the first place. More than 80 per cent of the accumulated GHGs in atmosphere have been emitted by these countries since they were the first ones to industrialise. They continue to emit more: a handful of about 30 rich countries account for nearly half the global emissions. Their average per capita emission is more than twice the world average and at least ten times more than that of India. A lot of it results from wasteful and luxurious consumption of energy. |
| But that doesn't mean the rest can just sit back and do nothing, does it? |
According to the Bali Action Plan, every country needs to take steps to reduce its energy consumption. But unlike rich countries, they do not have to affix targets and the reduction targets are not legally binding. This has been done so that the developing countries don't find themselves constrained in their effort to increase economic activity and reduce poverty. Development and poverty reduction have been recognised as the primary and overriding concern for these countries and that includes India. |
| Does everyone agree on such an arrangement? |
In principle, yes, but there are sharp differences over the details. Rich countries, for example, want big, emerging economies like India and China to also take some sort of targeted reductions in their rapidly growing emissions. Developing countries, on the other hand, are demanding more ambitious emission cuts from the rich countries. They are also asking for transfer of technology and money to cope with the effects of a problem that is essentially the making of rich countries. |
| So will the Copenhagen meet result in a deal? |
The chances of a comprehensive agreement in accordance with the Bali roadmap look remote. But all the major emitters are expected to list their offers to reduce their emissions. A political declaration is also likely to come out, stating the intent and commitment to quick action.Yahoo News/061209 |
| KRSR/101209 |
