Two distinct features set the third report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) apart from its two earlier instalments. First, even as the report points out that governments have not done enough to curb, let alone reverse, the rise in the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), it does not seek to instil a sense of despair. Containment of global warming to two degrees Celsius is still possible, the report argues, though it will require some fundamental changes in the world's energy mix and preservation of green cover to sequester atmospheric carbon. Second, it seeks to balance growth with climate concerns by pointing out that the economic cost of combating climate change is far from unaffordable, given that a cleaner environment would also lead to substantial economic benefits.
However, the unsavoury truth in the report is that GHG emissions grew more rapidly between 2000 and 2010 than in each of the three previous decades. If this trend endures, mean global surface temperature might surge by four degrees, with disastrous consequences for the economy, ecosystems and human health. In order to limit global warming to the manageable two-degree cap, the GHG discharges would need to be lowered by 40 to 70 per cent from the 2010 level by mid-century. This is several times higher than current emission reduction targets. The longer the world takes to intensify its battle against climate change, the more daunting the challenge will be.
One important point the report makes is that even the most ambitious global warming mitigation drive would reduce growth by only 0.06 percentage point of gross domestic product (GDP) in a year. However, a sizable part of it would be offset by the benefits - including some intangible ones - accruing from the use of alternative energy sources and cleaner atmosphere. Such paybacks include reduction in countries' vulnerability to energy price fluctuations, improvements in human productivity owing to reduced health risks, and alleviation of potential losses to life and property due to extreme weather.
In one way, this report is relatively significant than previous studies; it is set to guide the new global climate deal that is to be crafted by 2015. Crucially, it has suggested that countries be classified for the purpose of emission reduction targets on the basis of their growth and income levels - rather than by just grouping them as developed or developing ones. This approach will put countries like China - and India, unless the government contests it, which it should - in a separate bracket that would need to take on mandatory emission cuts. Even if these countries refuse to accept such a provision, they would find it difficult to wriggle out of indicating firm national emission reduction targets, even if these are non-binding. To get ahead of the curve, India's new government needs to rejuvenate its National Action Plan on Climate Change, which has so far remained an underperformer.
