Claimate Action Plan

By Chandramohan - Syndicate Features

‘Civil society groups’ have criticised the climate change action plan, presented by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on June 30, over what they said was ‘lack of transparency’ in preparing the document. Virtues of transparency need hardly be emphasised, but some in the lesser known sections of the ‘civil society’ would be wondering if the criticism of the plan is not somewhat misplaced when the ones who deserve the largest censure are the governments of developed countries, especially the United States of America, whose efforts at reducing greenhouse gas emissions also lack ‘transparency’.

By carrying out the deliberations behind closed doors the panel of Indian experts who prepared the climate action report--eminent persons in the environment field--have obviously aroused misgivings among the (unnamed) ladies and gentlemen in the ‘civil society groups’. But some others who can also legitimately claim to be part of the same ‘civil society’ would perhaps be less complaining when at least the government has a plan that is supposed to prepare the country to meet the challenges from climate change.

The Indian strategy for dealing with these challenges is going to be only a gradual shift from carbon emitting sources of energy to reliance on sustainable but green sources of energy, with development of solar energy—‘the original source of all energy’—as the pivot of this shift..

India is just not in a position to hasten the pace of the switch over because developmental imperatives require sustained economic growth, which remains dependent on the use of more readily available and more viable sources of energy. Oil may be costly and coal may be dirty but their substitutes will require a long wait.

India is becoming a favourite whipping boy of environmentalists and ‘civil society groups’ for being unmindful of its greenhouse gas emissions. The US is a particular India-baiter in this regard. That is both ironic and, if one may say so, shameful.

The rapid pace of India’s economy in the last 10 or 15 years has certainly led to an increase in emissions. From about 0.87 tonne per capita per annum it has increased to over one tonne per capita per annum since 1994. But look at the US, the loudest preacher. Its annual emission per person is 20 tonnes. Even China, which has just displaced the US as the world’s largest emitter, sends up into the atmosphere four times more greenhouse gases than India. Clearly, India cannot be pressurised to go slow with its development programmes when countries like the US are so hesitant is bringing down their emission levels and thus affect their luxurious style of living.

Admittedly, the Indian climate action plan makes no commitment on cutting carbon emissions, which are obviously rising in the country. That is because, as the Prime minister put it so beautifully, people of the country have ‘a right to economic and social development and to discard the ignominy of widespread poverty’.

Some time ago the Indian foreign secretary was lampooned by climate enthusiasts in the West when he questioned the US for rejecting outright the idea of enacting legislation to curb emissions. ‘The US will accept caps (on emissions) if India accepts caps. Where is the logic in this?’ he had asked. The Americans seem to be saying that since they are used to eating well they are not in a position to make any sacrifice but the Indians should and must eat poorly because they have been haunted for long by hunger and malnourishment. That is not the language acceptable in the 21st century.

The outgoing president of the United States, George W. Bush, says it will take another 15 years for gas emissions in the US to peak and the decline would follow thereafter. He would not enact any legislation to curb emissions because that could impose ‘tremendous costs on our economy and American families.’

He has also been saying that new technologies, nuclear power and ‘clean’ coal would be necessary to effect lesser emissions. The costs involved would be so heavy that even the world’s richest country (maybe things have changed slightly because of the ‘meltdown’ in the US) cannot find ready cash. If that is the case it will be even more difficult for India to opt for cleaner and greener energy options.

Interestingly, even as copious tears are being shed over climate degradation some rich countries are looking for riches (mining and oil) from the Arctic, which is fast losing its thick ice cover. The summer of 2008 in the Arctic may not be very different from the previous summer when the region had recorded its smallest area of ice. Some believe that by the middle of this century the area will be ice-free; the more pessimistic prediction is that the day might arrive within the next five years. Scientists think if the Earth temperatures continue to rise, climate cycle will actually see cooling effect in coming years.

Industrialised nations need to cut emissions urgently by up to 25 to 40 percent by 2020. Europe and Japan seem to see the point, especially the latter. The picture could look brighter if the US administration showed more determination to act.

Frankly this whole business of pitching developed countries against developing countries in the climate debate is pointless. The damage from climate change affects the whole world, not just a country or a region.

India is being scared with the prediction that global warming and rising sea levels will render at least 45 million ‘climate refugees’—people living in areas that will be inundated by the swollen sea. If sea levels are rising they are rising everywhere.

The battle to save the planet from climate change has to be a joint effort but the lead has to come from the countries that have enjoyed all the fruits of energy-based development for well over a century at the cost of the rest of the world.

- Syndicate Features -