The India Climate Observatory

Commentary, action and research on climate and development in India

Between contemplation and climate

by Leave a Comment

Whether or not the USA, Europe, the Western world, the industrialised Eastern world (China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan), adhere to or not their paltry promises about being more responsible concerning the factors that lead to climate change, is of very little concern to us. We have never set any store by international agreements on climate change.

This year will see the twenty-third conference of parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and for 23 years the world and India have listened to lofty tales about simple science. In these 23 years, neither has reckless consumption been halted nor has the economic model that encourages such reckless consumption been questioned by the conference of parties. As long as they do not, inter-governmental agreements are useless.

That is why we find unnecessary and pointless the hand-wringing that has taken place about the decision of the government of the USA to exit what is called the ‘Paris Agreement’, the December 2015 document agreed to and signed by practically every country which has some fuzzy paragraphs about low-carbon economy, innovation, technology, energy and finance – all of which have very much to do with the hold of the finance capitalists and the global technocrats over the international systems of our time.

President number 45 of the USA is neither wiser than nor baser than the wisest of basest of any of his predecessors: the American political system has to do entirely with the desire to dominate other countries. Number 45’s manner may be irksome, but through him speaks the American finance capital, its bloatsome defence industry and its insensate technology industry.

We do not expect the chiefs of the Western countries, the so-called major powers of the European Union, and their allies such as Japan and Australia to do any less. They are no different. We do not think any of them, their armies of bland advisers, their bankers and the brigades of industrialists great and petty who crowd their corridors of governance have read, much less reflected, on the lambent wisdom of our civilisation.

Many centuries ago, in the section of the Digha Nikaya, or Collection of Long Discourses, called Samannaphala Sutta, or the Fruits of the Contemplative Life, it was written that there are those who are addicted to debates and shout: “You understand this doctrine and discipline? I’m the one who understands this doctrine and discipline. How could you understand this doctrine and discipline? You’re practicing wrongly. I’m practicing rightly. I’m being consistent. You’re not. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You’re defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine; extricate yourself if you can!”

And this is how we view what are called climate negotiations, between the experts of countries. We care not for the arguments of number 45 of the USA, for what many in the world in the last week have protested as being absurd – it undermines economy, it takes away jobs, it is unfair, it is disadvantageous to us, and so on – is what they cheer and support their own countries for in areas where they stand to gain, such as trade (to sell cheap and useless goods), technology (to enslave and control), finance (to spin webs of debt), processes of modernisation (to homogenise cultures so that ever more ‘markets’ come into being).

We in India need no such instruction. But we must guard against our philosophies being swept away by these agreements, these grand comities of nations, the barrage of numerics and scientifics that are invented to display to us what a threat we are should we not emulate the West and its ways. We must guard against our own who prefer the baubles of post-industrial society to the intellectual and spiritual riches of our civilisation, and who seek to infest India with the same technological and ‘modern’ wares that so entranced the West and doomed its folk. This has very little to do with climate and its change and very much more to do with our Indic sciences and their worth, our conduct and our duty to Punyabhoomi Bharat.

– Rahul Goswami

Fair shares and the INDCs

by Leave a Comment

ICP_CSO_INDCs_report

The initial climate action pledges made by countries, and submitted to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), have been analysed and reviewed by a group of 17 international civil society organisations. These findings have been released in a report, ‘Fair Shares: A Civil Society Equity Review of INDCs’.

INDCs refer to Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, the official name of the UNFCCC for the climate targets and actions which a majority of countries submitted on or before October 1, the deadline set by the UNFCCC. They are commonly referred to as “national climate targets/actions” or “pledges”. They are referred to as the initial offers of countries in terms of responding to climate change, and as the building blocks of the new global climate agreement, which is set to be finalized at the upcoming Paris climate conference. The current INDCs will be implemented from 2020 to 2025 or 2030.

The assessment includes INDCs covering 145 countries and some 80 percent of current global emissions. This review is different because it uses not only a science-based assessment of the necessary global level of climate action, but also uses widely accepted notions of equity to present fair shares of the necessary effort for each country. The equity and fair shares standards are anchored on the UNFCCC’s core principles of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” and the “right to sustainable development”. The equity and fair shares standards used in this review take into account a range of interpretations of these principles. The group of international civil society organisations has said that the principles of equity and fair shares can be defined and quantified robustly, rigorously, transparently and scientifically, while accounting for differences of perspectives.

This review has said: “All countries should undertake their fair share of the global effort to tackle climate change. Each country’s fair share is based on its historical responsibility and capacity. Some countries have already emitted a great deal for a long time, contributing to warming that is happening already, and they thrive from the infrastructure and institutions they have been able to set up because of this. Some countries have much higher capacity to act than others, due to their higher income and wealth, level of development and access to technologies.”

This review is important because if the INDCs are not reviewed using a global carbon budget based on the science and widely held notions of equity, we will not be able to determine if each country committed its fair share of climate action. Equity and fairness are vital to unlocking cooperation, because – as the IPCC concluded in its most recent report – agreements that are seen to be fair are more likely to actually work. We will also not know if they are enough collectively to stave off dangerous global warming. The review sets a basis to demand higher ambition from each countries in Paris and beyond.

The review shows that the INDC commitments will likely lead the world to a devastating 3°C or more warming above pre-industrial levels. The current INDCs amount to barely half of the emissions cuts required by 2030.

Moreover, the INDCs submitted by all major developed countries fall well short of their fair shares. From the list of countries highlighted in the report, Russia’s INDC represents zero contribution towards committing its fair share. Japan’s represents about a tenth, the United States’ about a fifth, and the European Union’s just over a fifth of its fair share.

Most developed countries have fair shares that are already too large to fulfill exclusively within their borders, which is why there is a need for them to provide additional resources for developing countries to do more than their fair share, particularly through finance, technology, and capacity-building. However, there remains a striking lack of clear financial commitments from developed countries.

On the other hand, the majority of developing countries’ mitigation pledges exceed or broadly meet their fair share, including Kenya, the Marshall Islands, China, Indonesia, and India. Brazil’s INDC represents slightly more than two thirds of its fair share.

The question is: can developing countries with the largest rising emissions, such as China and Indonesia, now sit back because they have met their fair share? While the report clearly shows that the onus is on developed countries to commit more emissions cuts and financing, by no means does it give a free pass to developing countries. Our primary call is for each country – developing and developed – to do all it can in terms of climate action, working even to surpass its fair share.

What must therefore be done to close the emissions gap? The Paris COP21 agreement must ensure that domestic commitments and global targets alike are set in accordance with science and equity. It must also include a strong mechanism to increase the ambition of INDCs before their implementation in 2020, and every five years thereafter. Developed countries must make substantial new commitments to finance mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage in developing countries for a fully equitable climate agreement. Finally, countries must scale up action for sustainable energy transformation.

[The group: ActionAid International, Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development, Climate Action Network South Asia, CARE International, Center for International Environmental Law, Christian Aid, CIDSE, Climate Action Network Latin America, Friends of the Earth International, International Trade Union Confederation, LDC Watch International, Oxfam, Pan African Climate Justice Alliance, SUSWATCH Latin America, Third World Network, What Next Forum, and WWF International. The Climate Equity Reference Project, an initiative of EcoEquity and the Stockholm Environment Institute, provided analytical support. It is also supported by numerous social movements, networks, and other civil society groups in the international, regional, and national levels.]