It is important to unravel the latest fuss about the 2°C global temperature target India apparently acceded to at the Major Economies Forum in L’Aquila, Italy. The declaration, by the world’s 20 biggest and most powerful countries, said it recognised the scientific view that increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels should not exceed 2°C. The statement was widely criticised in India for the fear that it may have given an impression India had ‘given in’ to pressure to make commitments to cap its emissions. But it was not quite clear why something as obtuse as 2°C equalled a target. Confusion followed. It seemed we were against a 2° C cap; we wanted emissions to grow and disputed temperature increase was bad for us and for the world. Another proof, the western media tom-tommed, India was the renegade in climate negotiations.
Let’s sort out this issue. It is widely accepted keeping global temperature rise below 2°C — measured from pre-industrial levels (1850) — is the threshold that will prevent climate change from being ‘dangerous’ to becoming ‘catastrophic’. Now, let’s understand the politics. The fact is that in accepting the need to cap temperature, the world is also accepting the need to cap emissions, because of which temperatures are increasing. No rocket science, you would say.
Meeting this global temperature target is possible only if the world limits the concentration of all greenhouse gases at 450 part per million (ppm), taking together the stock and current emissions. It gets complicated here. The emission budget of 450 ppm has to be apportioned, based on equity, among nations. The problem with the L’Aquila declaration is not that it caps the increase in temperature, but that it does not make explicit this limit will require sharing the budget equally, among nations who have already used up their common atmospheric space and new entrants in economic growth, who want their space in the sun. Without this budget-sharing deal, the temperature cap becomes a virtual cap on the emissions of the developing world.
Let us be clear: The space is very limited. We know concentration of greenhouse gas emissions is already close to 430 ppm. But with some ‘cooling’ allowance, because of aerosols in the atmosphere, it comes close to 390-400 ppm. In sum, not much space left to be distributed and shared in our intensely unequal world.
But this is not all that confounds the science. The fact is that greenhouse gases have a long, a very long life, in the atmosphere. Gases pumped in, say since the late 1800s as the western world was beginning to industrialise, are still up there. This is the natural debt that needs, like the financial debt of nations, to be repaid. It was for this reason that, in late 1997, the Kyoto Protocol agreed to set emission limits on industrialised countries — they had to reduce, so that the developing world could increase. It is a matter of record that the emissions of these countries continued to increase. As a result, today, there is even less atmospheric space for the developing world to occupy. It is also evident the industrial world did nothing; it knew it needed to fill the space as quickly as possible. Now, we are left with just crumbs to fight about.
It is also no surprise, then, western academics (big names in this business) are now calling upon the developing world to take on emission reduction targets for the simple reason there is no space left for them to grow. The logic is simple, though twisted and ingenious. No space to grow. “You cannot ask for the right to pollute,” they tell the developing world.
This is unacceptable. We know emissions of carbon dioxide are linked to economic growth. Therefore, capping emissions without equal apportionment will mean freezing inequity in this world. Unacceptable.
What we have today is a pincer movement. The already-industrialised do not want to set interim targets when they will reduce their emissions drastically. They want to change the base-year from when emission reduction will be counted — to 2005 or 2007 instead of 1990. This means two things. One, they want to continue to grow (occupy space) in the coming years. Two, the space they have already occupied — as their emissions have vastly increased between 1990 and 2007 — should be forgiven. This, when we know that meeting the 450 ppm emission concentration target requires space to be vacated fast — they must peak within the next few years and then reduce drastically by at least 40 per cent by 2020 over 1990 levels. But why do this, when you can muscle your way into space?
The critical question is: How will the world share the carbon budget? The only answer is it will have to be based on equity. We will discuss these issues, even as the climate clock ticks.
