The prime minister’s special envoy on climate change, Shyam Saran, tells SREELATHA MENON that India is under pressure to cut emissions but no one has the upper hand.
India was under pressure at the climate change negotiations at Bonn last week as nations like Japan wanted all countries to undertake mandatory reduction commitments. Do you think India will be forced to make such commitments?
The talks are at a stage where we do not know what package will emerge at the end in December, what emission targets various countries will agree on. At Bonn, there was no closure on any key issue, but there is going to be considerable pressure to reduce emissions, especially from coal-based thermal power. The US has agreed to have a clean coal programme, is experimenting with a cap and trade system of emissions, and this is the trend worldwide.
With the US under President Barack Obama turning so pro-green, do you think India will have to agree to commitments to help the US. For, the US says that its Senate won’t pass a law on commitments that does not involve all nations?
The US is not so pro-green. What pressure can it or anyone else put on us? Pressure will come if others are willing to do something. No one is willing to do much yet. Neither the EU, nor the US, nor anyone. What the US has offered is too little, and that too goes back to the 1990 levels, which is less than what other nations have achieved under the Kyoto protocol.
So you feel the US can’t have the upper hand?
There will be pressure. There was demand from the EU, the US and Japan that at least major developing countries like India and China undertake reduction obligations. The US is in the process of pushing a legislation for cap and trade. It says it will expect emerging economies to take similar commitments.
So what is our stand? Will we steadfastly refuse to take commitments even if it means it will jeopardise a global agreement, even at the risk of the world slapping trade tariffs on us?
Our stand is not that we don’t want to take on obligations. It is that any deviation from our position of not taking mandatory commitments for targeted reductions should be supported by financial commitments and technological aid on the part of the developed nations. A cap on emissions will mean a cap on our development. It becomes a question that whether we are ready for such an energy constraint.
There is a general impression that India is saying no to commitments.
Yes, but that is not true. We are saying that we are the ones who will be most impacted by the climate change and therefore we are working on two fronts. One, we are ensuring that we do enough on developing renewable energy sources and have an ambitious solar energy plan and a climate change action plan. Second are our objectives on the international field. The targets taken by the developed nations, if ambitious, are good for all. We can also add our bit depending on the financial resources and the technological transfer made available. We are trying to push negotiations in that direction.
What about carbon tariffs?
The talks are continuing, so we can’t say if this will happen. But we have clarified that trade and competitiveness issues should not be mixed with climate change. Climate change should not be used as a peg to hang trade issues.
The developed world is talking of a level-playing field when they ask us to make commitments. But we started off on an unlevel-playing field with developed nations responsible for a bulk of historical carbon emissions. It is absurd to now talk of a level-playing field. There must be no straying into carbon tariffs to force us to take on emission targets.
Is India working with the US on clean coal and is your proposal for methanol conversion also a part of their initiative?
We have made a proposal at the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) at Poznan for setting up technology innovation centres in different parts of the world. It would be like a network of researchers on renewable energy-related technology. This will help us synergise development in different technological fields.
This proposal has been welcomed by many countries and it was pursued at Bonn this month at the climate change talks. As for the US, the new administration has started a clean energy forum for major developing nations which is a continuation of a forum of major economies under (former) president Geroge Bush. It will meet for the first time on the sidelines of the G-8 in July. It will primarily look at clean coal technology. In this, carbon capture and storage is one of the approaches that has been included. We have tried to suggest other options like methanol. The US is also interested in it and their Chemistry Nobel laureate George Olah has been working on this. I am planning to invite Olah to India. It has promise and India should explore it.
How early should coal plants go for conversion of CO2 into methanol?
CCS (carbon capture and storage) has not not proven to be safe yet and instead of storing carbon underground, methanol is about converting this carbon into a green bi-product. The earlier we adopt it in our coal-based plants, the better it will be. We need to do it even if there is no pressure on us. In the face of global talks, if we say we are not in favour of CCS, what is the alternative we have to offer? We should be able to tell the world. So, I am asking the Confederation of India Industries and National Thermal Power Corporation to work out a concept paper on methanol so that India is able to project it as an option for the country when it goes for the G-8 meeting.
