| As outliers in the developed world like the US and Australia eventually fall in line, global pressure will shift to China and India to become part of the effort to cut emissions. Till early last week the leaders of both the countries were not engaging. But China has over the weekend come out with a forthright statement by Premier Wen Jiabao making a clear commitment to clean up China's air and water and combat global warming. He called the national situation "grim" and said "we have no choice but to develop in an economical, clean and safe way". |
| The Indian position, on the other hand, has been to propose a committee to study the problem and suggest remedies. This is based on the premise, articulated by P Chidambaram in his Budget speech, that India is neither a "significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, nor will it be so in the foreseeable future." If official thinking has been inadequate, some independent experts have been outright negative in their approach. A former environment secretary has argued that "India should do what it needs to do and not what others want it to do". A retired scientist has gone one step further and argued that climate change has become a powerful tool "for pressurising developing countries to slow down their development process instead of forcing developed nations to play for their pollution". |
| India and China are, respectively, the fifth- and second-largest polluters right now but in per capita terms India's position falls to 20th and China's 18th. (The US is the largest polluter in both absolute and per capita terms.) But according to Zmarak Shalizi (World Bank, 2007), given their energy efficiency paths and assuming they pursue their current rapid economic growth, their combined share of global carbon dioxide emission will rise from 20 per cent in 2005 to 60 per cent in 2050. Their present per capita emission story will then be turned on its head. Their need to raise per capita incomes and a resultant rise in emissions are indisputable but within that they have to be a party to a global regime of emission reduction with an equitable sharing of costs. Both countries have to eschew unilateralism by looking at the price the US is paying in terms of international credibility and authority for its lonely journey from Kyoto to Iraq. |
| There are two sound reasons why countries, more so India, must join in a global sharing of responsibilities to tackle climate change. To reduce emissions is to pursue a public good. The wages of excessive emission are visited on the entire planet. Plus, the impact of global warming (mostly carbon dioxide induced) on poor countries is harsh. The melting of icecaps, growing unpredictability of the weather, river flows becoming seasonal, flooding of low-lying areas, greater waywardness of life-sustaining monsoons""all point to the need for both rich and poor to join hands in fighting climate change. India and China, which have played a minor role in crating the problem, will necessarily have to be part of the solution. |
| The second reason is, both India and China, because of their growing economic significance and numbers, see themselves as emerging global powers. They want to sit at the high table; China already does. India's attempt to get a permanent seat at the Security Council is a manifestation of the desire. The decision to acquire nuclear and space capabilities, aside of the needs of security and development, partially comes from the desire to be reckoned as a global power. It is axiomatic that to be so acknowledged, a nation has to share global responsibility. |
| How can the conflicting goals of rapid development (sharply rising per capita energy consumption and emissions) and reversing global warming (emission cutback) be reconciled? Emission cutback consists of two parts""reducing incremental energy consumption per additional unit of income and cutting emissions per unit of energy consumed. It must be in the strategic and economic interest of both India and China to reduce their dependence on energy imports. China, even with its huge coal reserves, has just turned a net importer. India, also well endowed with coal, has been so for long. Raising energy efficiency is part of an overall mindset that values sustainable development, improving the quality of life and reducing the disease burden by cutting emissions. Cutting emission per unit of energy consumption is part of the same endeavour. |
| But there is a cost in raising energy efficiency and reducing emissions. The need to engage with the rest of the world springs from the need to argue and bargain for an equitable share of that cost, keeping in mind who got rich by polluting and who needs to grow rapidly to beat poverty. Clean energy comes at a price. An issue that need to be debated is whether a carbon debt is owed by the developed to the underdeveloped. Another issue is whether global trade rules need to be rewritten to compensate emerging economies which have to sacrifice some of the comparative cost advantages by adopting emission controls. But as Clive L Spash (EPW 2007) laments, "there is no incentive do so (initiate such debates) when countries like India fail to engage in the international debate." |
Top Section
Explore Business Standard