The United Nations climate conference in the Polish city of Poznan, which concluded last week, marked a halfway point between Bali, where it was decided to have a successor to the Kyoto protocol, and Copenhagen where next December the successor agreement is to be sown up. As is to be expected, the view from the midpoint can both be pessimistic and optimistic, depending on the observer's mindset. UN officials have sought to adopt an optimistic stance by declaring that a clearer sense of where to go has emerged. This means that countries will now get down to the hard bargaining. This positive view is shared by the developed countries. On the other hand, climate activists and the developing countries have come back deeply pessimistic. They see the conference as having been an exercise in jockeying for positions in order to give away nothing before getting down to hard bargaining. They see this, with reason, as being the old game that the developed countries have played on other issues, like the trade talks (that are also stuck) and aid commitments (which were never fulfilled), of giving away little, if anything at all, untill there is no volition in the matter or till there is an acceptable quid pro quo. In part, people negotiating for the developed countries are waiting to see the role that the US adopts, which will be linked to the attitude of the Obama administration. Mr Obama himself has till now made the right noises, promising bold US leadership on climate change and agreeing that the US must cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. What bothers those who are disappointed is that there is no road map to get there, with milestones marking the way, and in any case Poznan was a setback from the position reached at Accra on reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation.
The optimists point out that the conference did chalk up a clear gain, an agreement on forest conservation which gives voice to native peoples residing in forests as a way of reducing the store of greenhouse gases. But here also the final text was a compromise. The developed countries balked at the use of the words "rights" and instead agreed to consult the forest dwellers. By far the bigger disappointment for the developing countries was the failure of their proposal to ensure that more resources came into the mitigation fund, which currently has just $ 60 million. They wanted the contribution to the fund from certified emission reductions to be raised from 2 to 3 per cent. But a group of developed countries, notably members of the European Union, Japan, Canada, Australia and Russia, put their foot down and defeated the proposal. They were against losing a part of the profit made from trading in carbon through the clean development mechanism.
India's strategy at this juncture, in the run-up to Copenhagen, is clear. It has to work at a stronger common position among the developing countries. For example, the rewards from stopping deforestation, in which Brazil and Indonesia are more interested, have to be balanced with the rewards from promoting reforestation, in which India and China are more interested. But by far the greatest task before India right now is taking urgent steps to improve its energy efficiency even as it resists the pressure to make commitments on emission reduction without the developing countries doing their bit to undo their past sins. Large-scale adoption of CFL lamps, the rapid growth of public transport, promotion of more energy-efficient motorised transport and greater incentives to business to become more energy efficient in factories and offices, are the areas where action need not wait for anyone. The national action plan on climate change is till now largely a declaration of intent.