Commentary, action and research on climate and development in India
Climate change poses the most serious threat to agriculture world over and to the food security, with countries like India facing the most unfavourable crop prospects, according to Chief Operating Officer of NutriPlus Knowledge Programme of ICRISAT Saikatdatta Mazumdar.
‘Climate change poses serious threat to food security’
India the ‘grim reaper’ of Durban’s climate talks
Friday, 09 December 2011
Controversial, certainly. This was the first time that India has been publically named-and-shamed for its blocking tactics in the negotiations. The other three countries featured in the ad – USA, Canada and Japan – are familiar targets of campaigner protests, but not emerging economies such as India. Now, the gloves are off – and countries unmasked.
Two weeks of close observation of the conduct of the Indian delegation at the COP 17 climate negotiations in Durban, have shown that the Indian government has consistently blocked efforts to move negotiations forward. At a time when the most vulnerable and least-developed countries are calling for legally-binding emissions reductions from major emitters such as the USA, China and India, our government has ducked-and-dived thwarting these efforts.
Despite its rhetoric of support for vulnerable nations – indeed, India routinely casts itself as the most vulnerable country to climate change – the government’s actions on the negotiating floor has put them at odds with the majority of vulnerable nations in these talks. India is now seen in small huddles with the USA and China, rather than supporting the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) or the Least Developed Countries (LDC).
This is disappointing, and need not be the case. At the previous UN climate summits in Cancun (2010) and Copenhagen (2009), we had a courageous and informed environment minister leading the negotiations for India. Jairam Ramesh took risks and fought the conventional wisdom – in India’s long-term interest. For this he was widely singled-out for praise. Instead, what we have now is cut-price leadership from a trillion-dollar country – at a time when the stakes could not be higher.
This can be changed. But India’s political establishment needs to understand that its credibility is at stake. When far smaller and poorer nations such as Bangladesh can field a delegation three times the size of India’s, it has to be asked: does the Government of India even understand its national interest?
If it did, perhaps more effort would have gone into actually crafting a negotiating position where India could recognise its responsibilities to the global commons as a major emitter and work to close differences. Instead, India whips out its large population denominator every time and talks of ‘equity’. This is a country with more billionaires than Japan and more mobile phones than toilets. A country where income inequality has doubled in 20 years; where economic growth has not dented grotesque child malnutrition rates; and where not even a single state is either low or moderate in terms of severity of hunger. All this despite an average 8% GDP growth rate over the past decade. Such a country of shameful inequality is in no position to lecture anyone about equity.
Nor is any of this fooling our neighbours. They see the glitzy malls going up and Mukesh Ambani’s billion-dollar skyscraper home (not lived in because it’s not facing the right way!). They see the mountains of wealth and the extremes of inequality, where people are barely treated as human. They read about the endless scams – including 2G where a former environment minister ripped off his country’s exchequer by forty billion dollars. If they are more informed, they will know that India’s black carbon emissions are fuelling glacier melt and suffocating our neighbourhood. But shush – that is a dirty secret we don’t want to talk about.
This is partly why many in our neighbourhood have broken ranks with dinosaur formations such as the ‘G-77/China’ and chosen to create their own political alliances where they can speak to their own agendas and priorities. Central to this is sheer survival in the face of accelerating climate change. Along with the Alliance of Small Island States, they have called for global mean temperature rise not to exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius – more ambitious than the 2 degrees Celsius that forms the current global consensus. Sadly for these nations, scientists predict that if warming trends remain unchecked, we are heading for 4 degrees C average temperature rise in a few decade. For Africa this translates into an unthinkable 6-7 degrees Celsius temperature rise by end-century – when everybody fries.
These countries understand their interest. They feel the fear in their gut. They are frightened of their future and what it will bring. If we understood our risks as a country – where water and food security are already on the knife-edge – we too would be scared, and act accordingly.
Instead, we patronise the vulnerable nations. We call ourselves ‘vulnerable’ – without showing any emotional or intellectual understanding of what this means. We talk down to them – as the Indian Ambassador did at the United Nations Security Council this year when vulnerable countries called for a debate on climate security.
Little wonder these nations have had enough. Over the last two years, one of the most exciting developments to observe has been the emergence of the ‘Cartagena Dialogue for Progressive Action’. This is a new grouping of developing and developed countries such as Bangladesh, Maldives, Indonesia, Chile, Malawi, Netherlands, Norway, Costa Rica, Australia, UK, etc. that have come together across historic ‘north-south’ divides to carve out a new middle ground in international climate politics. India is not a member and has allegedly been putting pressure on neighbouring countries to drop their support for this initiative.
The good news is that this new wave of cross-over alliances is having an impact. Yesterday, in an unprecedented move, the least developed countries, the Alliance of Small Island States and the European Union hosted a joint press conference calling for an ambitious outcome in Durban. They noted “The price of buying time is rising. Durban must deliver. The EU, LDCs and AOSIS are ready to undertake concrete obligations to manage the climate change challenge. We urge others to join.”
While posturing as a card-carrying member of the vulnerable nations, India is most commonly seen in the company of the USA and China in Durban – the G-3. As the three largest emitters of climate-changing gases, this is understandable. But if India wants to salvage any residual reputation for being on the right side of the argument in combating climate change – it should re-think its strategy, and its company.
The negotiations in Durban might not be at the forefront of the coalition Government’s mind as it fights for its political life under the onslaught of Team Anna’s anti-corruption campaign. But as Congress president, Sonia Gandhi, celebrates her 65th birthday today, perhaps she should reflect on what she can do to embolden Indian negotiators in Durban.
Firstly, India cannot continue to insist that negotiations on a binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should only start in 2020. This puts it in the worst company of climate laggards such as the USA. The decision is best seen as a choice between keeping a pathway to 2 degrees Celsius viable and closing the door now. Neither does this mean an immediate demand for India to adopt legally binding emissions reductions. Even the EU’s Roadmap only calls for a India’s emissions intensity targets in the next phase. While the detail of the negotiations can be bewildering, the core issue is not. It is about leadership, and not condemning India’s poor.
Jairam Ramesh understood leadership. Mrs Gandhi does too. As we all know, a word from her could stiffen the spine of minister, Jayanthi Natarajan, and put India in the forefront of a progressive new force at Durban. Instead of the Grim Reaper of Durban, India could emerge as the best friend and well-wisher of Africa.
Who knows, it might be the best birthday present Mrs Gandhi gets today. Her namesake, an erstwhile Hindu lawyer from Durban, with the initials ‘M.K.’, would certainly approve…
Malini Mehra is chief executive of the Centre for Social Markets (India) and director of Chinadialogue.net
The much awaited The National Action plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) was released on 30th June, 2008 to state India’s contribution towards combating climate change. The plan outlines Eight National Missions running through 2017. The Ministries involved submitted detailed plans to the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change in December 2008.
The NAPCC consists of several targets on climate change issues and addresses the urgent and critical concerns of the country through a directional shift in the development pathway. It outlines measures on climate change related adaptation and mitigation while simultaneously advancing development. The Missions form the core of the Plan, representing multi-pronged, long termed and integrated strategies for achieving goals in the context of climate change.
The Eight Missions of NAPCC
I. National Solar Mission
The ultimate objective is to make solar energy competitive with fossil-based energy options. By increasing the share of solar energy in the total energy mix, it aims to empower people at the grass roots level. Another aspect of this Mission is to launch an R&D programme facilitating international co-operation to enable the creation of affordable, more convenient solar energy systems and to promote innovations for sustained, long-term storage and use of solar power.
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy
Full Text – National Solar Mission
Full Text – Guidelines of New Grid Connected Solar Power Projects
II. National Mission for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
The Energy Conservation Act of 2001 provides a legal mandate for the implementation of energy efficiency measures through the mechanisms of The Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) in the designated agencies in the country. A number of schemes and programmes have been initiated which aim to save about 10,000 MW by the end of the 11th Five-Year Plan in 2012.
Full Text – National Mission for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
III. National Mission on Sustainable Habitats
This Mission was launched to make habitats sustainable through improvements in energy efficiency in buildings, management of solid waste and a modal shift to public transport. It aims to promote energy efficiency as an integral component of urban planning and urban renewal through its initiatives.
Full Text – National Mission on Sustainable Habitats
IV. National Water Mission
By 2050, India is likely to be water scarce. Thus, the Mission aims at conserving water, minimising wastage, and ensuring more equitable distribution and management of water resources. It also aims to optimize water use efficiency by 20% by developing a framework of regulatory mechanisms. It calls for strategies to accommodate fluctuations in rainfall and river flows by enhancing water storage methods, rain water harvesting and more efficient irrigation systems like drip irrigation.
Full Text – National Water Mission
V. National Mission for Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem
The Himalayan eco-system is vital to preserving the ecological security of India. Increases in temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, drought and melting of glaciers are obvious threats. The Mission calls for empowering local communities especially Panchayats to play a greater role in managing ecological resources. It also reaffirms the measures mentioned in the National Environment Policy, 2006.
Ministry of Science and Technology
Full Text – National Mission for Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem
VI. National Mission for a Green India
The Mission aims at enhancing ecosystem services such as carbon sinks. It builds on the Prime Minister’s Green India Campaign for afforestation and increasing land area under forest cover from 23% to 33%. It is to be implemented through Joint Forest Management Committees under the respective State Departments of Forests. It also strives to effectively implement the Protected Area System under the National Biodiversity Conservation Act, 2001.
Ministry of Environment and Forests
Full Text – National Mission for a Green India
VII. National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture
The Mission aims to make Indian agriculture more resilient to climate change by identifying new varieties of crops (example: thermally resistant crops) and alternative cropping patterns. This is to be supported by a comprehensive network of traditional knowledge, practical systems, information technology and biotechnology. It makes suggestions for safeguarding farmers from climate change like introducing new credit and insurance mechanisms and greater access to information.
Ministry of Agriculture
Full Text – National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture
VIII. National Mission on Strategic Knowledge on Climate Change
The aim is to work with the global community in research and technology development by collaboration through different mechanisms. It also has its own research agenda supported by climate change related institutions and a Climate Research Fund. It also encourages initiatives from the private sector for developing innovative technologies for mitigation and adaptation.
Ministry of Science and Technology
Full Text – National Mission on Strategic Knowledge on Climate Change
A Ninth Mission – Government to Prepare a National Bio-energy Mission
The mission, to be launched during the 12th Five-Year Plan, will offer a policy and regulatory environment to facilitate large-scale capital investments in biomass-fired power stations, Minister of New and Renewable Energy Farooq Abdullah said. It will also encourage development of rural enterprises.
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy – Related Press Releases
References : India.gov.in – National Portal of India
Five Facts on CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion in India
1. In 2008,
World total = 29.4 Giga tonnes of CO2 emitted
Top 10 emitters = 19.1 Giga tonnes of CO2 emitted
India was the 4th largest emitter after China, USA and Russia.
2. India, with 17% of the world’s population contributes to 5% of the CO2 emissions. It is 1 tonne of CO2 emitted per capita.
3. Between 1990 and 2008, India increased its CO2 emissions per capita by 80%.
4. 69% of India’s electricity came from the combustion of COAL, another 10% from natural gas and 4% from oil. The share of fossil fuels has increased to 83%
5. India aims to further reduce its emissions intensity of GDP by 20-25% by 2020 compared with the 2005 level. (The Copenhagen Accord)
(Sourced from : CO2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion – Highlights, 2010 Edition published by the INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY www.iea.org)
Cancun Climate Talks: Mexico finds its mojo and India emerges a winner
17 December 2010
For those looking for lessons in Indian diplomacy, Cancun hit a high-water mark. The reason was Jairam Ramesh. The Mexicans found their mojo and India finally emerged as a climate winner.
By Malini Mehra
The UN climate conference’s surprise outcome was not pre-determined. Just two weeks ago, most scribes had written off the prospects of an agreement – in keeping with a whole year of downplaying expectations. Copenhagen had handed Cancun a poisoned chalice and the bitter taste lingered.
No-one wanted a repeat of the stratospheric expectations, incoherent political process, murky last-minute deals and crushing results. Both trust and nerves had been shredded.
The Latins lead
The Mexican hosts listened – they promised an inclusive and transparent process, and delivered. The sustained applause, the multiple standing ovations that followed COP 16 President, Patricia Espinosa, as she gavelled through the agreement at 3:30am on 11 December were there for a reason. They were borne out of pure wonder, longing, pleasure and relief that the moment had arrived– the battered climate process had rescued itself.
Did having women in charge make a difference? You bet it did. Mexico’s foreign secretary, Patricia Espinosa, and Costa Rica’s Christina Figueres, the new Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, were a powerful double act. They knew just how much was riding on a successful conclusion to the talks and hit the right personal note at every step.
This is the human and emotional context in which India’s shifting position on climate must be seen. Negotiations are not just about red lines, rationality and hardball positions, they are about psychology, atmosphere and relationships. This is the backdrop against which a break with the past was made.
India develops nuance
The truth is that India’s position has been evolving ever since environment minister, Jairam Ramesh took office in May 2008. This is a good thing. From the acceptance of the 2 degree Celsius limit at L’Aquila in 2008, to Ramesh’s imaginative proposals on technology, international consultation and analysis this year, to his consensus-building language on the legal form of the agreement in the last days of Cancun, we have seen a steady evolution of the Indian position on climate change.
Ramesh has combined style with substance to bring new standing to India in the climate negotiations. He quickly understood the sticky issues around finance, monitoring and verification and worked hard to find solutions to release the pressure valves. In doing so he demonstrated that he had skin in the game and was willing to be a problem-solver and consensus builder.
A refreshing change from the traditional role of India as ideological blocker – long on pompous rhetoric and short on constructive action.
Climate and national interests
The UN climate negotiations are probably the most complex, technically demanding and politically charged. They are far-reaching in scope and the stakes could not be higher. But they have become ossified with negotiators unable to see the wood for the trees, or craft an effective collective response to growing warnings of climate calamity.
At root this is because governments do not fully understood what their national interests are in terms of climate change. If they did, there would be less talk of national sovereignty and more of collective effort. India is a case in point.
India’s failed approach
For more than a decade our policymakers acted as if climate change was somebody else’s problem. The west was to blame and we were victims. In a neatly-ordered world all we had to do was make strenuous demands for per capita equity as a populous third world nation, and we would deservedly get our fair share of global environmental space. The world owed us.
In the real world, the dialogue of the deaf in the UN climate negotiations continued and the poles began to melt faster. We kept doing the same thing and kept getting the same results. During this lost decade, we did not address the critical issue of our own domestic climate risks, impacts or lack of resilience. We failed to give our industry a head start to prepare for a low-carbon competitive future, and we failed to address the adaptation needs of our poorest and most vulnerable.
Not because we couldn’t have. But we chose not to. India has no shortage of wealth or entrepreneurialism. We have no dearth of intellectual, scientific or technological talent.
What we have is a dearth of vision and belief in ourselves.
The Jairam effect
Enter Jairam Ramesh. In one year he has been a one-man motor of change with a lorry load of ideas and the energy to put them in motion. We now have a pro-active climate policy that seeks to understand and address India’s risks while playing a constructive leadership role internationally.
For the first time we have our scientific assets systematically deployed to study climate impacts on India. We have an environment ministry that seeks to enforce its own laws and stand-up to vested interests. Under Ramesh, transparency is fast becoming the norm and the ministry’s website has set new standards for content, disclosure and design. No other minister in the entire Indian government addresses citizens so directly using his web platform.
Such open government is not for everyone and Ramesh has done little to strategically mobilise a domestic support base. He has his share of detractors and India’s climate politics are still dominated by the cold warriors. But his reforms have thumping resonance.
A recent Sanctuary Asia poll on his decision to commit India to a leadership role in Cancun resulted in a 94% approval rating. Young people and entrepreneurs, in particular, are keen on his focus on solutions and the business opportunities inherent in such an approach.
New role for India
At Cancun, Ramesh’s effectiveness lay in his skill in reading the political tea leaves. He realised moral authority now lay with the newly-assertive small island states and poorer nations. As the third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases India had a responsibility to curb its own emissions. New alliances such as the Cartagena Dialogue[i]had emerged bringing together rich and poor nations on a shared progressive agenda challenging the old order.
The significance of these new alignments has been little remarked in the Indian media. As a result, political discussion is ill-informed and out of date. To appreciate Ramesh’s stance one has to understand the changed negotiating environment and expectations of India as a rising power.
The Cancun Agreements will not arrest climate change. As UNEP’s recent report[ii] shows, we still have a mountain to climb to close the gap between current and projected emissions to remain below 2 degrees C of warming. Cancun’s significance lies in its restorative function. The multilateral system was re-booted and nations did the rare thing of embracing in the political equivalent of a group hug and vowing to work together.
Licence for leadership
India emerged as a star at Cancun because of Ramesh. Effective diplomacy requires risk-taking and he helped make things work. If we are to build on this, we will need better informed parliamentary and public discussion so that politicians can gain a mandate for leadership. This has been Ramesh’s Achilles heel but it says less about him and more about the state of the climate debate in India.
What is clear is that we need a debate not just about our domestic duties, but our international obligations as an emerging power in an interdependent world threatened by climate change. The good news is that under Ramesh we have finally made a start.
MaliniMehra is founder and chief executive of the Centre for Social Markets
For more like this, please visit Malini’s blog ‘Honest Opinion’ on the India Climate Portal: www.indiaclimateportal.org
[i] The Cartagena Dialogue includes, among others: Antigua & Barbuda, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, European Commission, France, Germany, Ghana, Indonesia, Malawi, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mexico (as COP President), Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Rwanda, Samoa, Spain, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, United Kingdom and Uruguay.
[ii]The Emissions Gap Report, United Nations Environment Programme. December 2010.
9 December, 2010
In December 2009, when environment minister Jairam Ramesh went to Copenhagen, he was seen off by a group of bright-eyed young Indian climate activists urging him to come back with a FAB (fair, ambitious and binding) deal. He promised to do so. Fast-forward to December 2010 and the Indian delegation is fighting tooth-and-nail to eviscerate any language on a binding deal at the UN’s climate talks in Cancun.
In resisting this, India is in shabby company – countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United States and Japan have been notoriously prevaricating or setting hurdles in the way of internationally binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Leading the charge for a legally-binding instrument are the most vulnerable nations on earth – the small island developing states and African countries. United in political blocs such as AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) and the Africa Group, these nations are fighting for their very survival in the face of indifference by many major powers – developed and emerging alike.
Both AOSIS and the Africa group have managed to organise themselves into effective political forces with strong moral authority as unwitting victims of climate change. In so doing they have lifted the stranglehold of more powerful countries within the G-77 lobby group of developing countries, that had long prevented the concerns of the most vulnerable from surfacing.
In recent days, AOSIS and the Africa Group have managed to bring along a range of nations to their cause for a legally binding instrument under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change curbing greenhouse gas emissions. AOSIS has recommended specific language under the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action that has been supported by the European Union, Costa Rica and many others. All in all, support for this could run into more than 100 countries.
Only India and a small clutch of countries are resisting this move. In this, India has been virtually isolated from others in the BASIC grouping – South Africa, Brazil and China – with whom it has closely allied since last year. These nations are not blocking but are either supporting AOSIS or are open to further dialogue – but not India.
India has legitimate concerns in asking for clarity on issues such as the content of legally binding, the penalty of non-compliance and the system of monitoring. But so do others – yet, they are not blocking progress as India is doing because they recognise that some progress on the issue of ‘legal form’ of commitments is a deal-maker issue at this vital meeting.
There is also widespread commitment from most countries supporting the call for a decision to put in place a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol – the only internationally legally-binding mechanism we have for greenhouse gas reduction. A second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol is essential. As the Kyoto Protocol only covers 18% of global emissions, however, there is a stand-off between developed and emerging nations as to who should be covered by international emissions controls.
For the most vulnerable countries, this battle between the major emitters can seem academic and that is why they are looking at innovative strategies to close the divide between the main political players.
The environment minister has taken to describing India as ‘the most vulnerable’ country in the world. Yet his rhetoric will cut little ice with vulnerable neighbours such as Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal and Bhutan who have all called for a legally binding agreement at Cancun.
Jairam Ramesh has won a following in India amongst environmentalists for the courage he has shown in the face of vested interests in the mining sector and flown the flag for India’s environmental integrity. He has also made singularly imaginative efforts to advance a more pro-active domestic climate policy in India. For this we salute him.
But if India’s old guard of bureaucrats prevent a similarly courageous and imaginative approach being taken at the international policy level, they should know they will receive the opprobrium of young and old Indians alike.
Time is running out and the window of opportunity on climate action is closing. With every day and hour that passes without international agreement, we condemn our poorest and most vulnerable to an uncertain and insecure future.
As Indians, we call on the Minister and our government to do the right thing and join the ranks of those calling for a fair, ambitious and legally-binding agreement at Cancun. The UN cannot afford another failed climate summit and India has it in her power to make a difference. She must make the right choice.
Malini Mehra & Harish Hande
Malini Mehra is founder and chief executive, Centre for Social Markets, and H. Harish Hande, PhD is Managing Director, SELCO SOLAR Light (P) Ltd.
05 March 2010
What a month. From high-profile resignations to Union Budget announcements, there has scarcely been a day without climate in the news. While the much-maligned but also fulsomely-supported IPCC chair and TERI supremo, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, has managed to hold onto his post for another month, February saw the announced departure of both Shyam Saran and Yvo de Boer. Neither was a surprise.
In Saran’s case, there has been a war of attrition with the Minister of State for Environment & Forests, Jairam Ramesh, since it became apparent that the Minister had a mind of his own when it came to Indian climate policy and politics. Since he took office in May 2009, the Minister and the Prime Minister’s special envoy have been at loggerheads with the former a reformist and the latter in the traditional mould of a defender of the faith. (The faith being the per-capita based climate orthodoxy followed by Indian governments since year dot.)
Not unsurprisingly, the Minister has had a tough time of it battling the ranked masses of supporters of the orthodoxy in both his Ministry as well as the press. But his sheer bloody-mindedness in getting things done has had an impact. Week on week and month on month, one has seen the needle rise with ever more initiatives on the multi-headed Hydra that is climate change. The Minister has made his ministry rise to the tempo and consolidated his grip on environment and climate policy across the government.
In the battle of wills with Saran, the Minister has won. But in the battle for the heart and soul of India’s climate policy, the Minister is not yet done – he has barely just begun. This is not a short-game. It is a long-game of changing risk-averse and change-averse institutions and demonstrating the economic and political benefit of action on climate change. This requires a powerful new narrative and it is not clear whether the Minister has found his compelling story on this as yet. One that will connect with both the titans of industry and the tillers in the field.
The fact that he is not quite there yet was revealed by yet another Union Budget that failed to make provisions for the much-vaunted eight Missions of the National Action Plan on Climate Change. Two years on and still no clear allocation as to how these expressions of intent are to be funded and implemented. With the riveting exception of the National Solar Mission, the flagship mission of the Government, one is at a loss as to explain how the Government has placed climate change at the heart of its policy-making. It seems very much like an ad-hoc affair still.
At the sub-national level, though, one can see the impact that a little bit of energy on climate change can unleash. State after state – though still not in the double digits – appears to be moving on climate change and expressing a new-found ambition to be ‘carbon neutral’ or the greenest state in the country. Much finer ambitions than merely to have the highest state-level GDP growth rate in the country. Especially if that growth is green and sustainable, not carbon-based and cancerous. If the national politics on growth and climate changes as a result, we could well be in very different territory come the next elections.
26 February 2010
The year has opened with post-Copenhagen recriminations and an unprecedented assault on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri. While Copenhagen continues to draw mixed assessments, the broadside against the IPCC and the invective carried in the UK’s Sunday Telegraph newspaper against Dr Pachauri caught many by surprise. Not that it should have. The infiltration of the email system of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) for a month late last year and the ensuing ‘Climategate’ storm with allegations of misconduct and bias by British climate scientists, should have alerted us that an orchestrated campaign against climate science had begun. Taking place conveniently in the lead-up to Copenhagen – no mistake that – Climategate sought to discredit the scientific basis for action on human-induced climate change. In that it had an effect, as opinion polls across the world showed a subsequent weakening of public confidence in assertions made by scientists and politicians for action on climate change.
Glaciergate, the revelation of mistakes in the IPCC’s peer-review process that allowed an error regarding the projected date of Himalayan glacier disappearance to appear in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, has caused similar damage to the reputation of climate scientists and the integrity of the IPCC as the gold-standard for climate research. The IPCC was slow to react to press allegations and too easily dismissed them out of hand before undertaking an internal assessment. The fact that the IPCC Chairman was under pressure at the same time for allegations of personal corruption did not help the IPCC’s media management. Beyond just a PR fiasco, the Glaciergate controversy has been highly personally damaging for Dr Pachuari and revealed for the first time the deficiencies in the IPCC’s own internal processes. Releasing a sex romp novel in the month that the IPCC came under the most intense public scrutiny of its life was perhaps not the wisest decision taken by its Chairman. Neither was the IPCC’s protracted admission that errors of oversight in the Glaciergate instance had been committed, and, indeed, that more could be expected given the IPCC’s over-reliance on scientists working in a volunteer capacity, rather than as full-time, paid professionals able to provide full due diligence of contributions. Overall, not a good month for science or scientists.
If the dirt thrown by Climategate and Glaciergate – however strongly politically-motivated by the climate-skeptic lobby – is not to stick, action must be taken swiftly. Both Dr Pachauri and the IPCC need to clear their names and re-establish the credibility that they enjoyed prior to these attacks. In the former it might well be suing those responsible for libelous personal attacks. In the case of the latter, it must surely be some degree of institutional reform to ensure that the deficiencies that have been brought to light lead to a changes in the peer-review and related processes. A number of proposals for reform of the IPCC are on the table. If the IPCC is serious about regaining public confidence – as opposed to merely the confidence of the cheerleaders of the climate advocate lobby – it must take them on board.
One thing we can be certain of – the climate skeptic and deniars lobby is not going away. The failure of the Copenhagen summit opened the gates of the last-chance saloon for the climate deniars. Here was manna from heaven. Climategate and Glaciergate have merely swelled their ranks and we will be seeing many more such orchestrated campaigns against the science, public trust, climate finance, carbon trading, and many more such issues in the coming months. We have been warned. If action on climate change is to have a chance, we will need a stronger strategy than one that has been on display so far.
21 December 2009
People will be discussing the Copenhagen climate conference for years to come. Opinions will be mixed as to whether it was a step forward or a failure. Only history will tell whether it was a turning point or a tipping point.
From a ringside view from one who was there, the feeling today is of anger and disappointment. The Copenhagen Accord may well prove to be the Munich Agreement of modern times. An appeasement to major emitting nations that condemned the world to runaway climate change and declared war on our children.
The Copenhagen Accord – the 3-page document to emerge from the UN Climate conference – has dubious legal status and was not adopted, simply ‘noted’, by the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on 19 December 2009. Its very existence, however, could now risk the architecture established by the UNFCCC to combat global climate change.
A Powerful Non-Agreement
There is much that is wrong with the agreement. It is not legally-binding, contains no mid-term or long-term targets for emissions reductions and critically does not refer to a ‘peaking’ year for global emissions in order to keep within the ‘safe’ limit of 2 degrees C of warming (since pre-industrial times).
Neither has it followed the guidance of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that indicates three benchmarks for avoiding dangerous climate change: (1) developed countries must reduce emissions by 25- 40 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels, (2) global emissions must peak and then begin to decline by 2020, and (3) global emissions must decline by 50% by 2050.
The Copenhagen Accord contains a reference to 2 degrees C but does not endorse it. Given that there are no targets, no peaking years, no trajectories for emissions reductions, only vague rhetoric, this is effectively an agreement for business-as-usual.
According to the Accord, countries that sign-on will not be required to adopt nationally-binding targets but invited to submit voluntary numbers. This will effectively convert what was hoped to be a high-ambition, globally-binding international regime into a more laissez-faire, self-determined ‘Pledge and Review’ system for each country with no international compliance mechanism.
Granted there are some ‘wins’ in the agreement, in four main areas: short and long-term finance; a review in 2015; transparency in monitoring, reporting and verifying (MRV) actions; and mechanisms on forests (REDD+) and technology. There is some cold comfort here. If the fast-track financing of $10 billion per year till 2012, and longer term financing of $100 billion per year by 2020, does materialize, it will come as much-needed adaptation assistance for the poorest, most vulnerable countries.
But the price paid for the Copenhagen Accord is a heavy one. The lure was the prospect of securing an Energy bill in the US Senate and finally getting US engagement in an international regime. Countries with the most to lose such as small island states, and even the European Union – which now remains the only region locked into legally-binding emissions controls – have given their acquiesance grudgingly for a deal seen as the least worst option on the table.
As a result of the low-ambition nature of the Accord, however, the EU now says that it will not raise its emissions cuts – long held as a bargaining chip – from 20 percent to 30 percent by 2020. An almost immediate chilling effect of the Accord.
Far worse, however, is the fear that if implemented according to the business-as-usual emissions targets announced so far by countries, the Accord will actually set the world on course for a 3 to 4 degree C world.
As this is a global average, the actual temperature rise in many parts of the world will be much higher. As the Sudanese chair of G77/China put it, 2 degrees means 3.5 degrees for Africa and certain death. The small island states have known this for some time which is why they set their threshold for global temperature rise at 1.5 degrees C to ensure “island survival”.
Not all of this has made an impression on the major players. The Indian environment minister, for example, was heard saying that their demand for 1.5 degrees to ensure survival would mean switching off all the lights and was “not possible”.
An Accord Too Far…
The ‘Copenhagen Accord’ is a cruel blow, a setback for millions around the world who had put their hope in their leaders to deliver on climate protection. Never before had such a constellation of groups and institutions calling for urgent and decisive action on climate change been assembled – from civil society, faith groups, business, investors, scientists, engineers and professional organizations, to the UN itself which ran an unprecedented ‘Seal the Deal’ campaign.
Leaders responded to the call and came – but they did not deliver. This is a failure of historic proportions because an ‘encore’ will be very difficult.
Instead, we have the modern equivalent of the Munich Agreement. In 1938 European powers sacrificed Czechoslovakia to Hitler’s aggression thinking this would appease his territorial hunger. The consequences of this gigantic miscalculation became evident with the unfolding horrors of World War II.
In 2009, we are making a similar miscalculation by allowing the major emitters to knowingly sacrifice the poor and vulnerable parts of the world for their ‘right to pollute’. The consequences of this act at a time when the implications of rising carbon emissions are well-known is unconscionable in the extreme.
The Copenhagen Accord is little more than ‘greenwash’ by a group of countries who have put the world on a highway to 4 degrees and 550ppm. The countries who have pushed this through will spin that this is but the first step, when they know full well they have no intention of submitting to legally-binding global reduction targets.
Those in the room of 26 nations that ‘sealed the deal’ on Friday 18 December say it was India who rejected language from an earlier draft of the Accord calling for a legally-binding instrument. Germany’s acceptance for India’s demand to strike the reference to “legally-binding” from the draft signaled the death-knell for any such commitment from developed nations or emerging economies.
India’s opposition to any legally-binding commitments coming out of the UNFCCC’s two-track approach under the Bali Action Plan – now to be extended into 2010 – continued to be forcefully expressed during the final Plenary in Copenhagen and will influence the outcome of COP16 in Mexico in 2010.
An anemic ‘Pledge and Review’ system it will be then …
A New World Order Emerges
What Copenhagen made blindingly clear is how the world has changed. We are in a new geo-political era. Gone are the days of lazy definitions of the world as ‘developed’ and ‘developing’. Nations such as China and India showed that they are the new power players and will act as nakedly in their self-interest as western powers have.
It was their double-act with the US that gave us this agreement – backed up by a pliant if somewhat discomfited Brazil and South Africa – and then bounced on to the rest of the world. So much for the transparency and inclusiveness that these BASIC nations had loudly called for from the Plenary floor. Regrettably they were not the only dissemblers. One found many such instances of public posturing and contrary private action over the course of the two weeks in the Bella Centre.
UN Reform – Creative Action and New Groupings
A key lesson from Copenhagen is that this new world order simply does not map onto the archaic systems and processes of the United Nations. The issue is not the UN per se but its processes and the ‘political capture’ it suffers from. The UN’s bloc politics are now at least a decade out of date and have not permitted the creative emergence of ‘coalitions of the ambitious’ from across the ‘North’ and ‘South’.
Copenhagen made depressingly clear that – for now – ‘political realism’ has trumped ‘climate realism’ and the G2 are incapable of providing global leadership. We will have to look elsewhere for solutions that will help the world turn the corner. The US and China, aided by others, have acted in their short-term political interest thinking they will be able to ‘manage’ their way out of climate change.
But the climate system is oblivious to the vaunted ambitions of temporal nations and a good kicking is around the corner. The reality is that those who have acted in their ‘national self-interest’ will find that their actions do not serve their long term interests in a climate- and resource-constrained world. The collateral damage of their decisions, however, will be tragic for those less able to cope – both in their own countries and elsewhere.
The good news is that nothing is stopping the emergence of new players. All we need is leadership. Instead of groupings such as the G77/China which are now dysfunctional and anachronistic, we need new groupings by nations that recognize the perils of climate change and increasingly see their interests aligned around early and decisive collective action to combat it.
Many of these nations – such as Maldives, Bangladesh, Barbados, Costa Rica, Mexico, South Korea, Brazil, European Union and others – are putting their faith in strong de-carbonisation efforts and smart ‘green growth’ plans. They now need to come forward with their fellow-travelers from ‘North’ and ‘South’ and devise a new politics fit to address the greatest challenge of our times.
In Europe seventy years ago, the key lesson of Munich was that appeasement is not an option. Today our hopes rest on multilateralism to prevent a cabal of nations assembled in elite fora such as the Major Economies Forum and the G20 making climate triage decisions over the rest of the world.
There is a very positive agenda ahead. The post-Copenhagen anger that many are feeling now can perhaps best be channeled into a determination to see a new, more responsible world order emerge. The last two weeks have been deeply disillusioning for many. But we have seen leaders emerge. We must now ensure that those who wish to lead on an equitable and effective climate agenda are not prevented from doing so.
