 "Need for funds, tech not a negotiating issue: Jairam Ramesh")
The adequacy of India’s climate change targets should not be under review under the Paris Climate Change agreement, says ex-Environment Jairam Ramesh in an interview to Nitin Sethi. But he agrees with Arvind Subramanian’s prescription to Prime Minister Modi: India should not ask for finance and technology from the developed world.
Your comments on India’s targets for Paris agreement
The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)first of all are no great surprise. They are along expected lines. I am very pleased that six years after mounting an attack on the concept of emissions intensity the government of the BJP has accepted the idea as a viable target to demonstrate India’s commitment to climate change. When this was done in the run up to Copenhagen I was bitter criticised by Mr Jaitley and others including some of my colleagues in the government as saying that emissions intensity will subvert or undermine India’s developmental autonomy and space. But that is clearly not the thinking?
No, this (NDA’s) emission intensity target is an unconditional target.
No sorry these are conditional targets.
Are we linking our emission intensity targets?
Yes
That is not my understanding
It says so explicitly that the Intended Nationally Determined Contribution is linked to finance, technology and nature of the Paris agreement
That is the standard Indian theology
That you don’t agree with?
I don’t agree with this standard Indian theology. And I don’t mind saying it. Because this emissions intensity reduction will happen because as we make new investments it is bound to. When we made the 20-25% target (below 2005 levels by 2020) people said it was a very ambitious target but now it seems we shall exceed the target. I think the fact that emissions intensity reduction is now very much part of our portfolio is vindication for the stand I had taken 6 years ago.
But I was surprised not to see an explicit target for energy efficiency given the fact that Perform Achieve and Trade system for energy efficiency – a cap and trade model for energy efficiency – was introduced and became operational.
But there is an implicit target embedded in the INDC?
Yes that I accept it is implicit at the moment. Clearly the big ticket item in the INDC is Solar power expansion. 3 GW now to 100 GW by the year 2022 and bigger scaling up between 2022-30. Although the target of 40% electricity capacity from non-fossil fuel does not look very revolutionary when you consider the fact that already is already at 27-28% today. It’s doable but it’s not a great revolutionary paradigm shift kind of an INDC.
But do you see any other country that has submitted revolutionary targets under their INDCs?
Look at Germany.
I am asking in the INDC they have submitted to the UN not generally what a country has done?
Look at Germany. Their renewable...
Sorry but then let’s talk of other’s INDC versus India’s INDC. Has any country done better?
Our INDC is not as bold as European Union’s INDC. It is bold by Indian standard
You believe Europeans have done much better?
I am taking Germany as an example
Then please take EU because we are comparing INDCs (which EU submits as one)
No let’s look at Germany’s example. It has no comparative advantage in Solar energy has over a 20 year period been able to build solar power capacity and drive down solar costs. In fact Germany has borne the learning curve cost for the world and has 12 times the capacity that India has today. Today 30% of electricity supply in Germany comes from renewables. That is expected to go up to 80% by 2050. By which time they are going to go off coal and nuclear.
But at this moment they are falling back on coal as they phase out nuclear?
Yes in the short time they are phasing out nuclear.
If you remember, science long back required EU to take a 25-40% cut below 1990 levels in their emissions by 2020. They are doing that now by 2030. How can this be an ambitious INDC then?
Let me complete what I was saying on the Indian INDC. The forest target is reasonable. When I was the minister we had done a study showing that forests in India even with the present poor quality of forests absorbs anywhere between 6-9% of our annual GHG emissions. So if over the 15 year period you are able to improve the quality of forests - because it’s very difficult to increase the geographical area - then maybe we can conservatively create a carbon sink for 8-10% of our annual emissions. So far as our INDCs are concerned, again it’s not a great surprise, it enshrines emission intensity as a goal.
But, one thing we need to recognise even with thisportfolio of INDC we are talking of a fourfold increase in consumption of coal
Would you see it any other way?
Given the fact that our solar programme has not taken off as yet, it’s still an ambitious plan and hopefully in next few years it will take off so the inevitability of India’s quadrupling of coal consumption is something that the world has to get used to. It’s a coal paradox for India. Probably we shall be reaching 2 billion tonnes by 2030 when Chinese would have capped their consumption by 2020 at about 3.5-3.7 billion tonnes per annum.
So does that make the demand from some countries and NGOs on India to go off coal duplicitous and unfair?
I wouldn’t use the word unfair. I would say the demographic reality of India given the fact that our per capita electricity consumption is half of China, third of the EU and 1/13th that of the US, although this masks a lot of internal inequalities, the fact is that in the next 15-20 years I don’t see how India can avoid quadrupling its coal production. And remember this is the time that Germany took to transform as well. Of course this quadrupling cannot be on business as usual. Coal mining has to be environmentally much friendlier and in terms of coal utilisation there has to be much more. I am not a fan of carbon capture and storage but certainly in terms of super-critical technology that would give us 4-5% savings and emissions and I think a much larger commitment to gasification of coal which would give a higher efficiency but also lead to reduction in emissions. The quadrupling of coal production should not blind us to the needs of these improvements.
So again, does it not make the US and EU’s push for disinvestment in India’s greenfield coal unfair?
I think this evangelical approach to coal is something I do not approve of at all. I think this saying write off coal is just not on and completely unrealistic. I don’t use words like fair and unfair but it’s unrealistic and I who have challenged India’s conventional wisdom on climate change negotiations have always maintained that coal will continue to be for the next two decades at least to the bulk in our energy portfolio.
However let me say, while much of our focus is on the electricity sector we should not forget the transport sector which is emerging as a major component in the emissions and is growing. I would have thought that the mandatory fuel efficiency standards we introduced would be reflected. I am hoping we shall still stick to that deadline though I hear there is pressure to extend it by one year.
Implementing these becomes all the more important considering the Volkswagen match fixing and the performance by the world’s biggest auto manufacturer. We must ensure that the fuel efficiency are under operating conditions and not the ideal laboratory test conditions. Then these should be extended to commercial vehicles.
You were someone who broke away from the paradigm of climate change that India had followed for years. The one voice in this government similar to yours is the chief economic adviser Arvind Subramanian.
Thank god…
You at that time had got him to write a paper on climate change for you
He did write a paper on how to operationalise equity.
Did he also talk in that about imposing border tax adjustments against India based on carbon content of goods?
My brief to him was give me an operational way of reflecting equity
In this recent letter he recommends India should let go of its demand for finance and technology from the developed countries…
I am completely in sympathy and support for what Arvind has said.
Is that your view or that of the Congress party?
It’s my personal view. It’s a view I took as minister in 2009 that it is in India’s own self-interest to do these things - what we call INDCs and what I prefer to call commitments - for many reasons. First reason, because of our own vulnerability even though we have not been the contributor...
But that bit everyone agrees with including the NDA government as a whole
...second, because of the co-benefits in this trajectory because of impact on public health. Thirdly the world’s third largest economy and the fastest growing economy surely can generate and mobilise technologies on its own without having to be a supplicant all the time.
That bit I think the NDA government also agrees. The difference of opinion arises that if you let go off the demand for finance and tech which perhaps countries in Africa require more than you …
Let them fight…
...Does it not take away a negotiating card from your hand without anything in return..
These are not negotiating cards.
You think the need for funds and technology is not a negotiating issue at the climate change talks
No, this is an obstructionist card. I think the concept of IPR in pharma sector makes a lot of sense. But I know technology better than most of these negotiators do, I still am not able to figure out what is this IPR issue in climate change. I can understand in pharma it is very important.
So you are saying we should not be sitting with other G77 developing countries asking for finance for them?
Why should we.
So should we be sitting alone at the climate negotiations outside the G77 countries alone?
I think the priority countries for finance are clearly Africa, the small island states and the least developed countries. If there is a global put of finance available, I would argue that first right must be of these countries.
But that everyone agrees upon
I am not so sure about that
So if we stop asking for finance and tech for other developing countries then we are left standing alone at the climate negotiations. We will not be part of the G77+China which you also wrote in your letter to the PM in 2009. You also said we should be moving away from these poor countries.
Our must be a multi-track. We cannot be only in the G77. We speak on behalf of the small island states..
We speak on behalf of the Like Minded Developing Countries…
But remember that the small island states look upon us as part of the problem
Do you see them closely aligned with the EU?
No, this traditional Indian position that somebody is a talking horse for somebody else, I don’t buy this argument. I think they are independent guys who have their independent concerns and you have to address them. As far as these small island states are concerned let me tell you they see India as part of the problem. We may not see that but they do.
Which EU also does..
So what?
So there was no Durban coalition that some countries joined with EU for their own national interests?
I don’t subscribe to this view that when Singapore speaks it’s the US speaking, when the Solomon Islands is speaking Australia is speaking.
You don’t think they are allied?
We should respect every country’s point of view and the fact that India for large number of countries, India may not have caused global warming but for the next 15 years India may not find a place in the stock of emissions but it’ s part of the flow increasing. That we must recognised.
People suggest that EU wants a bindingness on the targets yet it doesn’t offer finance and technology...
Bindingness on the targets is not on the issue or is even on the cards. I am not arguing for the bindingness of the targets at all.
..Let me complete, EU doesn’t offer finance and technology and wants the differentiation broken down at the same time they want a hard review of the targets. US on the other hand, some observers say, does not offer finance and technology, also wants the differentiation done away with but they want a loosely bound agreement. IN this India has to choose the two in its own national interest.
The architecture in the Paris agreement is anchored in the INDCs. This is a bottoms up approach. Nobody is going to change this at Paris. This is what we have determined and we will hold ourselves accountable in some way that is to be determined and negotiated. The sum total of these INDCs do not add up to 2 degree Celsius as of now. As we progress 5-10 years from now...after all this 2 degree target is not supposed to be achieved by 2020, its to be achieved by 2100 - so maybe 5 years from now every country including India will have more confidence to review the INDC. So INDC is not frozen in time and should be looked at again in reasonable time frame. Question really is, for the INDC what is the review process?
Yes, do we take the approach of a top down ratcheting up approach or as the US wants that countries engage in trust building and each country volunteers a new target periodically if it feels it should.
In my view the Copenhagen accord provided a framework for this system of accountability internationally. That system was based on International Consultation and Analysis. This is not a top down strict review of the type EU wants. It’s also not a completely bottom up thing where every country is free to announce this is what we have done. You cannot have to give confidence to the climate change community a loose architecture for INDC and a loose architecture for review as well. We have to agree what are the principles of this review. India has consistently said, along with US, China, Brazil and South Africa that this system should not be punitive and intrusive. This was used by all BASIC countries’ heads of states.
Sorry for interrupting. At the moment the argument is that we shall have an aggregate review and when we find the targets are not adequate we shall leave it to the countries to decide how much more they can do. The other version closer to the EU views is that if the aggregate doesn’t match up to the 2 degree target there will be someone telling you how much more should be done
No. No, that is not how international consultation and review system as the way I envisage it works. First let us agree that it would be non-intrusive and non-punitive. Let us also agree that the trigger for the international review shall be the country concerned. Why do I say this? There are two broad models of international review. IN the IMF every year a country’s macro-economic policy is reviewed by the IMF. In the WTO the trade policy of the country is reviewed, done at a frequency based on the share of your trade in the world. In this case the review is done by the WTO. It is a consultative process but it’s done by a bunch of guys who are coming in from the organisation.
This is different from what the US wants in climate change…
I don’t care what the US is saying I am telling you what I want.
So you want a country by country review by experts from UNFCCC?
In my scheme of things which I put forth at Copenhagen but it never flew then, the difference between the IMF and the WTO and climate consultations is the trigger would be a country’s own assessment of what its INDCs are and what the state of play is in regards to its implementation. That base document then gets subject to international consultations and analysis. The end result of this is some assessment of what country has done and recommendations for improvement but it does not lead to any form of punitive or intrusive intervention.
That sounds like closer to the EU proposal then
My position is closer to the US point of view.
But experts suggest EU is asking for an aggregate review of mitigation and then recommend what countries should do more at disaggregate level.
I am saying India puts out a 100 page document once every 5 years telling this is where we are in the implementation of the INDCs. This is what we expected it to be. If we have not reached somewhere this is the reason. This is a public document which gets discussed openly. And, we need an institutional mechanism for each country’s report. So that each country is internationally accountable for the commitments it takes up voluntarily. That should be the essence. The net result of that is some commonly agreed course of action as far as India is concerned. Will it mean upping of the level of ambition? It depends if you have not been able to achieve the existing level of ambition then what is the point in increasing it.
Just to get this clear. You are saying the review should not be of the adequacy of a country’s targets but of the implementation?
From 2009 onwards I have been saying the international consultation and analysis is not of the adequacy of the target but it’s the implementation of the target. The target is voluntary, but having taken on the target we should have the courage to hold ourselves internationally accountable. I reiterate it’s not a review of the adequacy of the target. Under no circumstances have I ever advocated a review of the adequacy of the target. It’s only of the implementation of the target. If at the end of the five years a country feels comfortable tweaking its INDC let it do it. But the starting point I repeat is not a review of the adequacy of the target. Very important.
Which is why I sought clarity…
It’s not a review of the adequacy it’s of the implementation and the achievement and what the country sees as a scenario future. But adequacy is not the starting point. Don't miss this. This is very important. Not the adequacy of the target.
If you only look at the review of the mitigation side of the targets but you do not look at the review of the means of implementation - technology, finance and capacity building then you have done away with the Convention’s provisions….would you want a review of the means of implementation given by rich countries as deep and hard as that of the mitigation efforts of all countries.
For me the crux of the issue is mitigation
You don’t think Africa’s actions on mitigation should be predicated on how much funds are made available?
The problem has started because of global warming, global warming has come because of emissions. Emissions have to be mitigated. There are some countries, which are not major emitters but have to adapt. We need to do both adapt and mitigate.
You avoided my question, should actions of countries in Africa be predicated on the delivery of means of implementation and their delivery should be reviewed as strongly?
I don’t speak on behalf of Africa..
You are a global leader on climate change...
I want to speak on behalf of India. India has the capacity and capability to tell the world that these are actions we shall take on our own because it is in our self-interest, because we are vulnerable and because there are co-benefits. We do not have to be supplicants and we are technology leaders.
So you are saying India should not ask for tech and finance with others. So if it doesn’t it sits outside the G77 and away from all other developing country blocks such as AOSIS and LDCs who are all asking for finance and tech.
You cannot prejudge the negotiations...
Am asking if entire G77 is asking for these resources and we are the only ones who are not then who are we partners with at the negotiations?
See your objective in Paris is to derail an agreement in Paris or get an international agreement in Paris? Part of this agreement is already done called the INDCs. The other part has to be negotiated. If that is not negotiated then it fails.
I shall ask again because I think you are avoiding an answer, if India is not asking for finance and technology then it is isolated in the developing countries groups because no one stands alone at the talks. Even the US works with the Umbrella group.
Keep asking….
At one point you too wrote that we should not be with developing countries…
We should not be only with developing countries
So should we step out of the G77?
I don’t think such questions can be answered in isolation. There is some commitment that was made on finance. That has not been fulfilled. It is impossible and will not be fulfilled at Paris. Technology is not going to be made freely. If you want to keep beating these old tunes you can. As of now the Green Climate Fund is about 10 billion dollars under the most liberal definition of green finance. By 2020 we are supposed to be reaching 10 times this. I don’t see it happening. I just don’t.
So should the global developing world community therefore let go off their right on this?
But I don’t see it happening. I can see it happening bilateral. I don’t see it happening multilateral.
So should the developing world stop asking for developed world to meet its obligations simply because they won’t deliver?
See you have to make a cold blooded assessment of what is possible and what is not. If your objective is argumentation and to stick to moral principles by all means do it.
Then doesn’t taking higher and higher targets without funds and technology restricts the economic space...
We already have our economic space. Nobody is stopping us. Why do we need finance for super-critical technology? What is the great technology issue?
So you are saying the developed world is not using climate change to restrict our developmental space?
I don’t see any evidence. I don’t see any evidence. It would if they start putting border taxes and all that. They have asked for a carbon tax at times, there have been proposals.
Or peaking years for India’s emissions?
I said at Copenhagen India’s peaking year is China’s plus twenty five years. I can think of a peaking plateau for coal, where India’s coal consumption by 2030-35 stabilises. But not a peaking year, it’s a peaking plateau which is U-shaped. And I think we should start thinking of it irrespective of what happens at Paris. We should start thinking of it. The Chinese worked and thought of it for five years.
They also ramped up their coal production rapidly in that period
We should think of plateau of coal by mid 2030s and what we need to do for it. This we should be thinking of. I think we should make this public not officially but work on it. I believe in this. To do so domestically.
Let me ask you this again, do you really think developed countries have not attempted to climate change negotiations through the prism of competitive advantage to restrict growth. Not achieved but attempted to?
No I don’t subscribe to this conspiratorial view that this is implicit in your question. Dr Manmohan Singh was right, the world wants India to succeed, the world does not want India to fail. So we must get rid of this bloody shibboleth that has bound our climate change negotiations.
You were the only one even in your government to believed so, neither did your government believe it nor does NDA
There is a continuity in irrationality. It is the march of folly. Do you know for almost four years to fight the battle to get the word green economy in? Now it’s being used. I find Mr Suresh Prabhu and Mr Prakash Javadekar had done for seminar on Green Economy. When I had said it was like oh no you can’t talk about it.
But that is because the balance between sustainable economic growth, social concerns and green economy has been settled in the sustainable development goals
A green economy is a balanced economy. It means an economy that grows rapid, inclusive and sustainable.
At the Sustainable Development Goals negotiations the trade-offs between the three have been the key arguments
Those trade-offs should be made and made democratically and publicly.
Last question, how many days will you be at Paris?
I don’t know. The Parliament will be in session. Maybe the GST bill will come up. Who knows? The big battles have been won before Paris. The single biggest battle at Paris is the review and the review let me repeat not of adequacy but review of implementation of the INDCs and achievement and future scenarios. That is the crux of Paris.
Your comments on India’s targets for Paris agreement
The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)first of all are no great surprise. They are along expected lines. I am very pleased that six years after mounting an attack on the concept of emissions intensity the government of the BJP has accepted the idea as a viable target to demonstrate India’s commitment to climate change. When this was done in the run up to Copenhagen I was bitter criticised by Mr Jaitley and others including some of my colleagues in the government as saying that emissions intensity will subvert or undermine India’s developmental autonomy and space. But that is clearly not the thinking?
More From This Section
But was the criticism then directed at you for giving up something without seeking anything in return from the developed world and not for the targets you imposed?
No, this (NDA’s) emission intensity target is an unconditional target.
No sorry these are conditional targets.
Are we linking our emission intensity targets?
Yes
That is not my understanding
It says so explicitly that the Intended Nationally Determined Contribution is linked to finance, technology and nature of the Paris agreement
That is the standard Indian theology
That you don’t agree with?
I don’t agree with this standard Indian theology. And I don’t mind saying it. Because this emissions intensity reduction will happen because as we make new investments it is bound to. When we made the 20-25% target (below 2005 levels by 2020) people said it was a very ambitious target but now it seems we shall exceed the target. I think the fact that emissions intensity reduction is now very much part of our portfolio is vindication for the stand I had taken 6 years ago.
But I was surprised not to see an explicit target for energy efficiency given the fact that Perform Achieve and Trade system for energy efficiency – a cap and trade model for energy efficiency – was introduced and became operational.
But there is an implicit target embedded in the INDC?
Yes that I accept it is implicit at the moment. Clearly the big ticket item in the INDC is Solar power expansion. 3 GW now to 100 GW by the year 2022 and bigger scaling up between 2022-30. Although the target of 40% electricity capacity from non-fossil fuel does not look very revolutionary when you consider the fact that already is already at 27-28% today. It’s doable but it’s not a great revolutionary paradigm shift kind of an INDC.
But do you see any other country that has submitted revolutionary targets under their INDCs?
Look at Germany.
I am asking in the INDC they have submitted to the UN not generally what a country has done?
Look at Germany. Their renewable...
Sorry but then let’s talk of other’s INDC versus India’s INDC. Has any country done better?
Our INDC is not as bold as European Union’s INDC. It is bold by Indian standard
You believe Europeans have done much better?
I am taking Germany as an example
Then please take EU because we are comparing INDCs (which EU submits as one)
No let’s look at Germany’s example. It has no comparative advantage in Solar energy has over a 20 year period been able to build solar power capacity and drive down solar costs. In fact Germany has borne the learning curve cost for the world and has 12 times the capacity that India has today. Today 30% of electricity supply in Germany comes from renewables. That is expected to go up to 80% by 2050. By which time they are going to go off coal and nuclear.
But at this moment they are falling back on coal as they phase out nuclear?
Yes in the short time they are phasing out nuclear.
If you remember, science long back required EU to take a 25-40% cut below 1990 levels in their emissions by 2020. They are doing that now by 2030. How can this be an ambitious INDC then?
Let me complete what I was saying on the Indian INDC. The forest target is reasonable. When I was the minister we had done a study showing that forests in India even with the present poor quality of forests absorbs anywhere between 6-9% of our annual GHG emissions. So if over the 15 year period you are able to improve the quality of forests - because it’s very difficult to increase the geographical area - then maybe we can conservatively create a carbon sink for 8-10% of our annual emissions. So far as our INDCs are concerned, again it’s not a great surprise, it enshrines emission intensity as a goal.
But, one thing we need to recognise even with thisportfolio of INDC we are talking of a fourfold increase in consumption of coal
Would you see it any other way?
Given the fact that our solar programme has not taken off as yet, it’s still an ambitious plan and hopefully in next few years it will take off so the inevitability of India’s quadrupling of coal consumption is something that the world has to get used to. It’s a coal paradox for India. Probably we shall be reaching 2 billion tonnes by 2030 when Chinese would have capped their consumption by 2020 at about 3.5-3.7 billion tonnes per annum.
So does that make the demand from some countries and NGOs on India to go off coal duplicitous and unfair?
I wouldn’t use the word unfair. I would say the demographic reality of India given the fact that our per capita electricity consumption is half of China, third of the EU and 1/13th that of the US, although this masks a lot of internal inequalities, the fact is that in the next 15-20 years I don’t see how India can avoid quadrupling its coal production. And remember this is the time that Germany took to transform as well. Of course this quadrupling cannot be on business as usual. Coal mining has to be environmentally much friendlier and in terms of coal utilisation there has to be much more. I am not a fan of carbon capture and storage but certainly in terms of super-critical technology that would give us 4-5% savings and emissions and I think a much larger commitment to gasification of coal which would give a higher efficiency but also lead to reduction in emissions. The quadrupling of coal production should not blind us to the needs of these improvements.
So again, does it not make the US and EU’s push for disinvestment in India’s greenfield coal unfair?
I think this evangelical approach to coal is something I do not approve of at all. I think this saying write off coal is just not on and completely unrealistic. I don’t use words like fair and unfair but it’s unrealistic and I who have challenged India’s conventional wisdom on climate change negotiations have always maintained that coal will continue to be for the next two decades at least to the bulk in our energy portfolio.
However let me say, while much of our focus is on the electricity sector we should not forget the transport sector which is emerging as a major component in the emissions and is growing. I would have thought that the mandatory fuel efficiency standards we introduced would be reflected. I am hoping we shall still stick to that deadline though I hear there is pressure to extend it by one year.
Implementing these becomes all the more important considering the Volkswagen match fixing and the performance by the world’s biggest auto manufacturer. We must ensure that the fuel efficiency are under operating conditions and not the ideal laboratory test conditions. Then these should be extended to commercial vehicles.
You were someone who broke away from the paradigm of climate change that India had followed for years. The one voice in this government similar to yours is the chief economic adviser Arvind Subramanian.
Thank god…
You at that time had got him to write a paper on climate change for you
He did write a paper on how to operationalise equity.
Did he also talk in that about imposing border tax adjustments against India based on carbon content of goods?
My brief to him was give me an operational way of reflecting equity
In this recent letter he recommends India should let go of its demand for finance and technology from the developed countries…
I am completely in sympathy and support for what Arvind has said.
Is that your view or that of the Congress party?
It’s my personal view. It’s a view I took as minister in 2009 that it is in India’s own self-interest to do these things - what we call INDCs and what I prefer to call commitments - for many reasons. First reason, because of our own vulnerability even though we have not been the contributor...
But that bit everyone agrees with including the NDA government as a whole
...second, because of the co-benefits in this trajectory because of impact on public health. Thirdly the world’s third largest economy and the fastest growing economy surely can generate and mobilise technologies on its own without having to be a supplicant all the time.
That bit I think the NDA government also agrees. The difference of opinion arises that if you let go off the demand for finance and tech which perhaps countries in Africa require more than you …
Let them fight…
...Does it not take away a negotiating card from your hand without anything in return..
These are not negotiating cards.
You think the need for funds and technology is not a negotiating issue at the climate change talks
No, this is an obstructionist card. I think the concept of IPR in pharma sector makes a lot of sense. But I know technology better than most of these negotiators do, I still am not able to figure out what is this IPR issue in climate change. I can understand in pharma it is very important.
So you are saying we should not be sitting with other G77 developing countries asking for finance for them?
Why should we.
So should we be sitting alone at the climate negotiations outside the G77 countries alone?
I think the priority countries for finance are clearly Africa, the small island states and the least developed countries. If there is a global put of finance available, I would argue that first right must be of these countries.
But that everyone agrees upon
I am not so sure about that
So if we stop asking for finance and tech for other developing countries then we are left standing alone at the climate negotiations. We will not be part of the G77+China which you also wrote in your letter to the PM in 2009. You also said we should be moving away from these poor countries.
Our must be a multi-track. We cannot be only in the G77. We speak on behalf of the small island states..
We speak on behalf of the Like Minded Developing Countries…
But remember that the small island states look upon us as part of the problem
Do you see them closely aligned with the EU?
No, this traditional Indian position that somebody is a talking horse for somebody else, I don’t buy this argument. I think they are independent guys who have their independent concerns and you have to address them. As far as these small island states are concerned let me tell you they see India as part of the problem. We may not see that but they do.
Which EU also does..
So what?
So there was no Durban coalition that some countries joined with EU for their own national interests?
I don’t subscribe to this view that when Singapore speaks it’s the US speaking, when the Solomon Islands is speaking Australia is speaking.
You don’t think they are allied?
We should respect every country’s point of view and the fact that India for large number of countries, India may not have caused global warming but for the next 15 years India may not find a place in the stock of emissions but it’ s part of the flow increasing. That we must recognised.
People suggest that EU wants a bindingness on the targets yet it doesn’t offer finance and technology...
Bindingness on the targets is not on the issue or is even on the cards. I am not arguing for the bindingness of the targets at all.
..Let me complete, EU doesn’t offer finance and technology and wants the differentiation broken down at the same time they want a hard review of the targets. US on the other hand, some observers say, does not offer finance and technology, also wants the differentiation done away with but they want a loosely bound agreement. IN this India has to choose the two in its own national interest.
The architecture in the Paris agreement is anchored in the INDCs. This is a bottoms up approach. Nobody is going to change this at Paris. This is what we have determined and we will hold ourselves accountable in some way that is to be determined and negotiated. The sum total of these INDCs do not add up to 2 degree Celsius as of now. As we progress 5-10 years from now...after all this 2 degree target is not supposed to be achieved by 2020, its to be achieved by 2100 - so maybe 5 years from now every country including India will have more confidence to review the INDC. So INDC is not frozen in time and should be looked at again in reasonable time frame. Question really is, for the INDC what is the review process?
Yes, do we take the approach of a top down ratcheting up approach or as the US wants that countries engage in trust building and each country volunteers a new target periodically if it feels it should.
In my view the Copenhagen accord provided a framework for this system of accountability internationally. That system was based on International Consultation and Analysis. This is not a top down strict review of the type EU wants. It’s also not a completely bottom up thing where every country is free to announce this is what we have done. You cannot have to give confidence to the climate change community a loose architecture for INDC and a loose architecture for review as well. We have to agree what are the principles of this review. India has consistently said, along with US, China, Brazil and South Africa that this system should not be punitive and intrusive. This was used by all BASIC countries’ heads of states.
Sorry for interrupting. At the moment the argument is that we shall have an aggregate review and when we find the targets are not adequate we shall leave it to the countries to decide how much more they can do. The other version closer to the EU views is that if the aggregate doesn’t match up to the 2 degree target there will be someone telling you how much more should be done
No. No, that is not how international consultation and review system as the way I envisage it works. First let us agree that it would be non-intrusive and non-punitive. Let us also agree that the trigger for the international review shall be the country concerned. Why do I say this? There are two broad models of international review. IN the IMF every year a country’s macro-economic policy is reviewed by the IMF. In the WTO the trade policy of the country is reviewed, done at a frequency based on the share of your trade in the world. In this case the review is done by the WTO. It is a consultative process but it’s done by a bunch of guys who are coming in from the organisation.
This is different from what the US wants in climate change…
I don’t care what the US is saying I am telling you what I want.
So you want a country by country review by experts from UNFCCC?
In my scheme of things which I put forth at Copenhagen but it never flew then, the difference between the IMF and the WTO and climate consultations is the trigger would be a country’s own assessment of what its INDCs are and what the state of play is in regards to its implementation. That base document then gets subject to international consultations and analysis. The end result of this is some assessment of what country has done and recommendations for improvement but it does not lead to any form of punitive or intrusive intervention.
That sounds like closer to the EU proposal then
My position is closer to the US point of view.
But experts suggest EU is asking for an aggregate review of mitigation and then recommend what countries should do more at disaggregate level.
I am saying India puts out a 100 page document once every 5 years telling this is where we are in the implementation of the INDCs. This is what we expected it to be. If we have not reached somewhere this is the reason. This is a public document which gets discussed openly. And, we need an institutional mechanism for each country’s report. So that each country is internationally accountable for the commitments it takes up voluntarily. That should be the essence. The net result of that is some commonly agreed course of action as far as India is concerned. Will it mean upping of the level of ambition? It depends if you have not been able to achieve the existing level of ambition then what is the point in increasing it.
Just to get this clear. You are saying the review should not be of the adequacy of a country’s targets but of the implementation?
From 2009 onwards I have been saying the international consultation and analysis is not of the adequacy of the target but it’s the implementation of the target. The target is voluntary, but having taken on the target we should have the courage to hold ourselves internationally accountable. I reiterate it’s not a review of the adequacy of the target. Under no circumstances have I ever advocated a review of the adequacy of the target. It’s only of the implementation of the target. If at the end of the five years a country feels comfortable tweaking its INDC let it do it. But the starting point I repeat is not a review of the adequacy of the target. Very important.
Which is why I sought clarity…
It’s not a review of the adequacy it’s of the implementation and the achievement and what the country sees as a scenario future. But adequacy is not the starting point. Don't miss this. This is very important. Not the adequacy of the target.
If you only look at the review of the mitigation side of the targets but you do not look at the review of the means of implementation - technology, finance and capacity building then you have done away with the Convention’s provisions….would you want a review of the means of implementation given by rich countries as deep and hard as that of the mitigation efforts of all countries.
For me the crux of the issue is mitigation
You don’t think Africa’s actions on mitigation should be predicated on how much funds are made available?
The problem has started because of global warming, global warming has come because of emissions. Emissions have to be mitigated. There are some countries, which are not major emitters but have to adapt. We need to do both adapt and mitigate.
You avoided my question, should actions of countries in Africa be predicated on the delivery of means of implementation and their delivery should be reviewed as strongly?
I don’t speak on behalf of Africa..
You are a global leader on climate change...
I want to speak on behalf of India. India has the capacity and capability to tell the world that these are actions we shall take on our own because it is in our self-interest, because we are vulnerable and because there are co-benefits. We do not have to be supplicants and we are technology leaders.
So you are saying India should not ask for tech and finance with others. So if it doesn’t it sits outside the G77 and away from all other developing country blocks such as AOSIS and LDCs who are all asking for finance and tech.
You cannot prejudge the negotiations...
Am asking if entire G77 is asking for these resources and we are the only ones who are not then who are we partners with at the negotiations?
See your objective in Paris is to derail an agreement in Paris or get an international agreement in Paris? Part of this agreement is already done called the INDCs. The other part has to be negotiated. If that is not negotiated then it fails.
I shall ask again because I think you are avoiding an answer, if India is not asking for finance and technology then it is isolated in the developing countries groups because no one stands alone at the talks. Even the US works with the Umbrella group.
Keep asking….
At one point you too wrote that we should not be with developing countries…
We should not be only with developing countries
So should we step out of the G77?
I don’t think such questions can be answered in isolation. There is some commitment that was made on finance. That has not been fulfilled. It is impossible and will not be fulfilled at Paris. Technology is not going to be made freely. If you want to keep beating these old tunes you can. As of now the Green Climate Fund is about 10 billion dollars under the most liberal definition of green finance. By 2020 we are supposed to be reaching 10 times this. I don’t see it happening. I just don’t.
So should the global developing world community therefore let go off their right on this?
But I don’t see it happening. I can see it happening bilateral. I don’t see it happening multilateral.
So should the developing world stop asking for developed world to meet its obligations simply because they won’t deliver?
See you have to make a cold blooded assessment of what is possible and what is not. If your objective is argumentation and to stick to moral principles by all means do it.
Then doesn’t taking higher and higher targets without funds and technology restricts the economic space...
We already have our economic space. Nobody is stopping us. Why do we need finance for super-critical technology? What is the great technology issue?
So you are saying the developed world is not using climate change to restrict our developmental space?
I don’t see any evidence. I don’t see any evidence. It would if they start putting border taxes and all that. They have asked for a carbon tax at times, there have been proposals.
Or peaking years for India’s emissions?
I said at Copenhagen India’s peaking year is China’s plus twenty five years. I can think of a peaking plateau for coal, where India’s coal consumption by 2030-35 stabilises. But not a peaking year, it’s a peaking plateau which is U-shaped. And I think we should start thinking of it irrespective of what happens at Paris. We should start thinking of it. The Chinese worked and thought of it for five years.
They also ramped up their coal production rapidly in that period
We should think of plateau of coal by mid 2030s and what we need to do for it. This we should be thinking of. I think we should make this public not officially but work on it. I believe in this. To do so domestically.
Let me ask you this again, do you really think developed countries have not attempted to climate change negotiations through the prism of competitive advantage to restrict growth. Not achieved but attempted to?
No I don’t subscribe to this conspiratorial view that this is implicit in your question. Dr Manmohan Singh was right, the world wants India to succeed, the world does not want India to fail. So we must get rid of this bloody shibboleth that has bound our climate change negotiations.
You were the only one even in your government to believed so, neither did your government believe it nor does NDA
There is a continuity in irrationality. It is the march of folly. Do you know for almost four years to fight the battle to get the word green economy in? Now it’s being used. I find Mr Suresh Prabhu and Mr Prakash Javadekar had done for seminar on Green Economy. When I had said it was like oh no you can’t talk about it.
But that is because the balance between sustainable economic growth, social concerns and green economy has been settled in the sustainable development goals
A green economy is a balanced economy. It means an economy that grows rapid, inclusive and sustainable.
At the Sustainable Development Goals negotiations the trade-offs between the three have been the key arguments
Those trade-offs should be made and made democratically and publicly.
Last question, how many days will you be at Paris?
I don’t know. The Parliament will be in session. Maybe the GST bill will come up. Who knows? The big battles have been won before Paris. The single biggest battle at Paris is the review and the review let me repeat not of adequacy but review of implementation of the INDCs and achievement and future scenarios. That is the crux of Paris.