Unusually intense - "freakish" - weather events have become a feature of the post-global warming world. India has experienced several such events in the past few months - the floods in Uttarakhand, the unusually timed heavy rains and consequent flooding in eastern India, and of course Cyclone Phailin. And so, with freakish weather events becoming far too frequent across the globe, the need for a new climate deal to replace the extended Kyoto protocol assumes added urgency. Next month, countries meet at Warsaw to craft a new deal to be signed in 2015.
But over the past few years, the reluctance of major polluters to commit to cuts in greenhouse gas emission has only grown. Most industrialised countries argue they will pledge emission cuts only if the developing countries, especially fast-growing ones, also do so. Even the European Union - the only region that has made appreciable progress in meeting the Kyoto targets - makes that argument. Certainly, China, which is now the world's largest polluter and has levels of per capita pollution comparable to those in some European countries, cannot be exempt from these demands. But the position of India and China is very different in this respect; India, not the workshop of the world, cannot be expected to be held to that standard, too - its per capita emissions are far too low to qualify the country for cuts. India's government should not repeat the mistake it made at Copenhagen of being bracketed with China, and must instead craft a strategy separate from Beijing's.
The costs of inaction are already being incurred, by way of increased losses and damages resulting from weather-related natural disasters. Unusually intense summers and progressively more devastating hurricanes and floods have become common globally. Both China and India have been victims. The gaps in India's climate adaptation strategies became evident during the various extreme events. During Cyclone Phailin, lives were saved through a thorough evacuation process; but damage to property, infrastructure, agriculture and livelihood was severe. It is, therefore, in the country's interest to step up its efforts to safeguard the environment. And New Delhi should also press for a multilateral, binding climate treaty. It has developed, in the past, a reputation for being a spoiler in such things that it must avoid henceforth. It has long been argued that mitigation or adaptation efforts in countries that would struggle to afford them must be met by the historical polluters in the West; India's negotiators should pre-emptively offer to have the country's mitigation and adaptation efforts observed by international inspectors, if that is what it takes to set up a global climate fund. And it should lead the charge to put moral pressure on the industrialised economies and on China to pledge higher emission cuts.
