development Archives - The India Climate Observatory

Fair shares and the INDCs

November 12, 2015 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

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.]

India spells out a climate action plan

October 7, 2015 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

We present here the summary of India’s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) which have been submitted to the UN Climate Change Convention (the UNFCCC). This summary has been released by the Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Our analysis of and commentary on India’s INDCs will follow in separate articles.

The Government of India has said that the country’s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) are balanced and comprehensive. In official statements, the government said that INDCs include reductions in the emissions intensity of its GDP by 33 to 35 per cent by 2030 from 2005 level and to create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of CO₂equivalent through additional forest and tree cover by 2030. India has also decided to anchor a global solar alliance, INSPA (International Agency for Solar Policy & Application), of all countries located in between Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn.

The INDCs centre around India’s policies and programmes on promotion of clean energy, especially renewable energy, enhancement of energy efficiency, development of less carbon intensive and resilient urban centres, promotion of waste to wealth, safe, smart and sustainable green transportation network, abatement of pollution and India’s efforts to enhance carbon sink through creation of forest and tree cover. It also captures citizens and private sector contribution to combating climate change.

The INDCs outline the post-2020 climate actions they intend to take under a new international agreement. The INDCs document is prepared with a view to taking forward the Prime Minister’s vision of a sustainable lifestyle and climate justice to protect the poor and vulnerable from adverse impacts of climate change. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change adopted an inclusive process for preparation of India’s INDCs. It held stakeholder consultations with the specific involvement of the key Ministries and State Governments. Interactions were also held with civil society organisations, thinktanks and technical & academic institutions of eminence. The Ministry had commissioned Greenhouse Gas (GHG) modeling studies for projections of GHG emissions till 2050 with a decadal gap. The gist of all these consultations & studies were taken on board before submitting India’s INDCs. The government zeroed-in on a set of contributions which are comprehensive, balanced, equitable and pragmatic and addresses all the elements including Adaptation, Mitigation, Finance, Technology Transfer, Capacity Building and Transparency in Action and Support.

Planned actions and economic reforms have contributed positively to the rapidly declining growth rate of energy intensity in India. The Government of India, through its various institutions and resources, has taken steps to decouple the Indian energy system from carbon in the long run. Despite facing enormous development challenges like poverty eradication, ensuring housing, electricity and food security for all, India declared a voluntary goal of reducing the emissions intensity of its GDP by 20–25%, over 2005 levels by 2020, despite having no binding mitigation obligations as per the Convention. A slew of policy measures to promote low carbon strategies and Renewable Energy have resulted in the decline of emission intensity of our GDP by 12% between 2005 and 2010. It is a matter of satisfaction that United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in its Emission Gap Report 2014 has recognized India as one of the countries on course to achieving its voluntary goal.

India has adopted several ambitious measures for clean and renewable energy, energy efficiency in various sectors of industries, achieving lower emission intensity in the automobile and transport sector, non-fossil based electricity generation and building sector based on energy conservation. Thrust on renewable energy, promotion of clean energy, enhancing energy efficiency, developing climate resilient urban centres and sustainable green transportation network are some of the measures for achieving this goal.

Solar power in India is poised to grow significantly with Solar Mission as a major initiative of the Government of India. A scheme for development of 25 Solar Parks, Ultra Mega Solar Power Projects, canal top solar projects and one hundred thousand solar pumps for farmers is at different stages of implementation. The Government’s goal of ‘Electricity for All’ is sought to be achieved by the above programs that would require huge investments, infusion of new technology, availability of nuclear fuel and international support.

The energy efficiency of thermal power plants will be systematically and statutorily improved. Over one million medium and small enterprises will be involved in the Zero Defect Zero Effect Scheme to improve their quality, energy efficiency, enhance resource efficiency, pollution control, waste management and use of renewable energy.

Urban transport policy will encourage moving people rather than vehicles with a major focus on Mass Rapid Transit Systems. In addition to 236 km of metro rail in place, about 1150 km metro projects for cities including Pune, Ahmedabad and Lucknow are being planned. Delhi Metro, which has become India’s first MRTS project to earn carbon credits, has the potential to reduce about 0.57 million tonnes of CO₂ e annually. The switch from Bharat Stage IV (BS IV) to Bharat Stage V (BS V) and Bharat Stage VI (BS VI) to improve fuel standards across the country is also planned for the near future.

Renewable energy sources are a strategic national resource. Harnessing these sources will put India on the path to a cleaner environment, energy independence and, a stronger economy. The renewable energy technologies contribute to better air quality, reduce reliance on fossil fuels, curb global warming, add jobs to the economy and, protect environmental values such as habitat and water quality. Over the years India has successfully created a positive outlook necessary to promote investment in, demand for, and supply of, renewable energy. India’s strategy on renewable energy is driven by the objectives of energy security, energy access and also reducing the carbon footprints of the national energy systems. It has evolved over the years through increasingly stronger commitment at federal level.

The institutional arrangement for offtake of renewable energy power will be further strengthened by Renewable Purchase Obligations and Renewable Generation Obligations. India’s share of non-fossil fuel in the total installed capacity is projected to change from 30% in 2015 to about 40 % by 2030. India is running one of the largest renewable capacity expansion programmes in the world. Between 2002 and 2015, the share of renewable grid capacity has increased over 6 times, from 2% (3.9 GW) to around 13% (36 GW) from a mix of sources including Wind Power, Small Hydro Power, Biomass Power / Cogeneration, Waste to Power and Solar Power. On normative terms the CO₂ emission abatement achieved from the renewable power installed capacity was 84.92 million tons CO₂ eq. /year as of 30 June 2015.

To accelerate development and deployment of renewable energy in the country, the Government is taking a number of initiatives like up-scaling of targets for renewable energy capacity addition from 30GW by 2016-17 to 175 GW by 2021-22.The renewable power target of 175 GW by 2022 will result in abatement of 326.22 million tons of CO₂ eq. /year. The ambitious solar expansion programme seeks to enhance the capacity to 100 GW by 2022, which is expected to be scaled up further thereafter. Efforts will include scaling up efforts to increase the share of non-fossil fuel based energy resources in total electricity mix including wind power, solar, hydropower, biomass, waste to energy and nuclear power.

The range of ecosystem goods and services provided by forests include carbon sequestration and storage. Despite the significant opportunity costs, India is one of the few countries where forest and tree cover has increased in recent years and the total forest and tree cover amounts to 24% percent of the geographical area of the country. Over the past two decades progressive national forestry legislations and policies of India have transformed India’s forests into a net sink of CO2. With its focus on sustainable forest management, afforestation and regulating diversion of forest land for non-forest purpose, India plans to increase its carbon stock. Government of India’s long term goal is to increase its forest cover through a planned afforestation drive which includes number of programmes and initiatives like Green India Mission, green highways policy, financial incentive for forests, plantation along rivers, REDD-Plus & Other Policies and Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority

For the first time devolution of funds to states from the federal pool will be based on a formula that attaches 7.5 % weight to the area under forest. It takes into account the changing realities in order to rebalance the fiscal system of the country in a way that will incentivize greener distribution of resources. This initiative will give afforestation a massive boost by conditioning about USD 6.9 billion of transfers to the states based on their forest cover, which is projected to increase up to USD 12 billion by 2019-20.

For India, adaptation is inevitable and an imperative for the development process. India is facing climate change as a real issue, which is impacting some of its key sectors like agriculture and water. The adverse impacts of climate change on the developmental prospects of the country are further amplified enormously by the existence of widespread poverty and dependence of a large proportion of the population on climate sensitive sectors for livelihood. It is of immediate importance and requires action now.

In the INDCs, the country has focused on adaptation efforts, including: a) developing sustainable habitats; b) optimizing water use efficiency; c) creating ecologically sustainable climate resilient agricultural production systems; d) safeguarding the Himalayan glaciers and mountain ecosystem; and, e) enhancing carbon sinks in sustainably managed forests and implementing adaptation measures for vulnerable species, forest-dependent communities and ecosystems. India has also set up a National Adaptation Fund with an initial allocation of INR 3,500 million (USD 55.6 million) to combat the adaptation needs in key sectors. This fund will assist national and state level activities to meet the cost of adaptation measures in areas that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.

India’s climate actions have so far been largely financed from domestic resources. India already has ambitious climate action plans in place. Preliminary domestic requirements to implement national climate plans add upto more than USD 2.5 trillion between 2015 and 2030.Substantial scaling up these plans would require greater resources. Developing countries like India are resource constrained and are already spending enormous amounts on climate change, . Implementing climate change mitigation and adaptation actions would require domestic and new & additional funds from developed countries in view of the resource required and the resource gap.

Urgent efforts to reduce GHG emissions need to take place against the backdrop of a growing energy demand and urbanisation in India. With the responsibility of lifting around 360 million people out of poverty and raising the standard of living of an even greater number of people, technology is the only powerful solution for countries like India that can simultaneously address climate change and development needs. Technology development and transfer and capacity-building are key to ensuring adequate development and deployment of clean-technologies. The technology gap between rich and poor countries remains enormous and the capacity of developing economies to adopt new technology needs to be enhanced. Enhanced action on technology development and transfer will be central in enabling the full and effective implementation of India’s INDCs. Developed countries should be supportive and help in transfer of technology, remove barriers, create facilitative IPR regime, provide finance, capacity building support and create a global framework for Research & Development on clean coal and other technologies.”

Mr Modi’s carbon nationalism

April 14, 2015 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

If Prime Minister Narendra Modi were better advised he could avoid being contradictory in his discourses – including informal ones such as the one he delivered a few days ago in Germany – about development, about our traditions and about climate change. The NDA-BJP government is almost a year old, and Modi’s short conversation on these subjects only underlines that his government is still ill-advised on climate change.

There are aspects of his conversation, conducted with the Indian community in Berlin, the capital of Germany, with which we agree. And there are more aspects with which we do not. Here, provided in the order they were reported upon, is what Modi said, followed by our view.

a) “I am surprised that the world is scolding us even though our per capita gas emission is the lowest.”

We cannot calculate our way out of the position that, in April 2015, our population is about 1,275 million people and that each of these people – young and old, rich and poor, urban and rural – is responsible to some degree for emissions. What “the world” is more pertinently reminding us about is that the number of Indian citizens multiplied by an ‘average’ emission does amount to a very large volume of carbon (and of gases that add to global warming and climate change).

What this government ought to be paying very much more attention to are the relative inequalities – inside an apparently low per capita emission. In the first place, minors and seniors generally have a smaller (or even much smaller) individual footprint. That leaves about 688 million adults whose contributions to emissions need to be considered. From this number, it is the 241 million or so adult inhabitants of our urban areas whose contributions count for more, and amongst these it is those who have entered (or are entering) the middle strata of the middle class, and of course those who are wealthier than the middle class, whose individual and household contributions count for even more.

So the question to the Prime Minister is not about low per capita emissions but about the inequalities present in individual and household emissions responsibilities that are obscured by the large number of 1,275 million. We may be indifferent to the ‘scolding’ of the world, but we do think think there should be far more scolding within India, the states and the cities, for our continuing to use a per capita emissions basis that hides true responsibility.

b) “The whole world is posing questions to us. Those who have destroyed climate are asking questions to us. If anybody has served nature, it is Indians.”

We agree that our serving of nature has been exemplary in recorded and oral histories, but only until the present era and particularly until the immediate contemporary period from around 1990. Over the last generation and a half, we cannot make such a claim.

Our South Asian neighbours – Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka – have by all three measures relatively small global impacts. The size of our population and the depth of our industry and economy however has made India the third largest emitter of CO2 (after China and the USA). But if India seeks some sort of ‘parity’ in electricity use – or if India sees the low per capita CO2 emissions as a ‘development’ gap – our total contribution to CO2 emissions will only rise faster, hurting the environment (and nature) that we share with our neighbours.

This is unlikely to result in any constructive recognition of all that is linked. A country’s total emissions is one part of the ‘development’ picture and others are at least as important. There are also tons of CO2 emitted per capita (India has often said that its per capita emissions are far below those of the West). And there is per capita consumption of electricity (which is still mainly generated by burning coal).

c) “India will set the agenda for the upcoming Conference of Parties (COP)” [meeting that is to be held in Paris, France, in September].

As for setting an agenda, what is to be set, with what section of citizens’ agreement and under whose terms, all these remain unknown. Modi’s assertion comes as a surprise then. For the citizens of India and the residents of 35 states and union territories are ignorant of such an agenda, if it exists. We would prefer to recall some of the good advice provided by the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report: “Climate change has the characteristics of a collective action problem at the global scale, because most greenhouse gases accumulate over time and mix globally, and emissions by any agent (individual, community, company, country) affect other agents.”

Thus the message to policy-makers is clear – what counts is what you do at home, in states and districts. The expectation that “international cooperation” should guide effective adaptation at all levels is no longer (and in our view has never been) tenable.

d) Modi said the solutions to the ‘crisis’ are in India’s traditions and customs, and that India wants solutions to the global problem of climate change.

What we see however is embarrassing proof of our very un-ecological and climate unfriendly new habits. In urban areas – where most of the buying of vehicles for households has taken place – the physical space available for the movement of people and goods has increased only marginally, but the number of vehicles (cars, two-wheelers, goods carriers) has increased quickly. Naturally this ‘growth’ has choked our city wards. More motorised conveyance per household also means more fuel demanded per household, and more fuel (and money) wasted because households are taught (by the auto industry) that they are entitled to wasteful personal mobility. Over 20 years, the number of cars per household has increased 4.1 times but the number of buses per household has increased only 2.8 times. This negligent wastefulness is at odds with the ‘traditions and customs’ referred to by Prime Minister Modi.

Finally, as we pointed out recently, there are no ‘terms of trade’ concerning climate change and its factors. There is no deal to jockey for in climate negotiations between a narrow and outdated idea of GDP-centred ‘development’ and monetary compensation. The government of India is not a broking agency to bet a carbon-intensive future for India against the willingness of Western countries to pay in order to halt such a future. This is not a carbon casino and the NDA-BJP government must immediately stop behaving as if it is.

Warm streets, cold summits

September 25, 2014 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

A part of the people’s march against climate change in New York, USA. Photo: Reuters / Eduardo Munoz

The United Nations Climate Summit 2014, held on 23 September, can be considered as a study in two contrasts. On the one hand was the People’s Climate March – an enormous gathering of concerned citizens in New York, USA, which may have seen a combined total of some 400,000 people. The marchers through their diversity and energy delivered one message in many creative ways. That message was: we citizens can and will rid the planet of fossil fuels and nuclear power, that such action will be demanding and difficult but we will do it at the grassroots and make a difference there.

On the other hand was the Climate Summit. This, said the UN, would serve as a public platform for leaders at the highest level, by which is meant all UN Member States, as well as finance, business, civil society and local leaders from public and private sectors. The gathering, said the UN, would “catalyse ambitious action on the ground to reduce emissions and strengthen climate resilience and mobilise political will for an ambitious global agreement by 2015 that limits the world to a less than 2-degree Celsius rise in global temperature”.

Did it succeed? No and yes. If there has been a gain from the events of 23 September it is to strengthen their individual and community resolve to act locally in an effort to tackle both the effects and the causes of climate change.

Where the Summit itself is concerned, against the background of 22 years of negotiations and conferences on climate change (the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change came about in 1992) it proved to be atypical. There were a number of promises and resolutions made to add to the mountain of such promises and resolutions but this summit – like every single other summit before it – brought no significant response from the political establishment.

Unsurprisingly, this is not how the UN sees the outcome of its recent work, for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon summed up the Summit as “a great day, a historic day. Never before have so many leaders gathered to commit to action on climate change”. Ban said that the Summit he called “delivered” because the many leaders attending “reaffirmed determination to limit global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees Celsius by cutting emissions”.

Such announcements underline the contrast between the desire on the street and the cold comfort of summit announcements (now in their 22nd year). On 23 September the UN tip-toed around the large global and regional corporations (and their financier special interests) whose business practices have deepened environmental and socio-economic emergencies all over the world, and which are responsible for worsening – much less alleviating – the vulnerabilities of populations exposed to the risk of climate change.

The UN has regrettably turned into a recurring practice this avoiding of issues central to climate change (see the summary document, pdf, 243kb). But, at the same time, the UN together with a host of organisations that have more or less to do with climate change (private, academic, industry fora and so on) repeated once more a worn roster of promises.

These are:
* “Strong support” for the Green Climate Fund, with one more total being pledged (precious little has been actually transferred) and still more being “committed” (these are all commitments with renewable expiry dates).

* “A new coalition of governments, business, finance, multilateral development banks and civil society leaders” (what happened to all the other coalitions announced grandly at every other summit?) which once again was quick to commit to providing US$ 200 billion “for financing low-carbon and climate-resilient development”, including banks which want a ‘Green Bonds’ market.

* That carbon pricing continues to be “one of the most powerful tools available for reducing emissions and generating sustainable development and growth”, which in the end is a promise to continue the commodification and financialisation of emissions, an extremely troublesome industry whose regulation has proved difficult.

Instead of such expensive jamborees whose recycled announcements do little more than provide a false sense of security to citizens, the UN should emulate the example of the marchers and encourage small, local and meaningful action.

After the sound-and-light show of the Climate Summit 2014 we advocate just as strongly as before that it is local development – of, by, and for the people – which finds and leverages appropriate technology, encourages open source collaboration, and focuses on pragmatic, technical solutions to our problems, that will make the difference. Such action alone will reduce our impact on the environment and hedge households and communities against natural disasters made worse by a ritual of inaction.

We need more than summits and marches to deal with climate change

September 22, 2014 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

Ban Ki-moon with marchers. "There is no 'Plan B' because we do not have 'Planet B'." Photo: UN Photo / Mark Garten

Who is the man in the blue cap and why is he on the street? Ban Ki-moon with marchers. “There is no ‘Plan B’ because we do not have ‘Planet B’.” Photo: UN Photo / Mark Garten

On September 20 and 21, the gathering of what has been called ‘climate marchers’, including many youth, expresses a growing popular concern over the impact of global warming on the world’s environment. During the march in New York, USA, the largest of the several marches held in several cities and countries, the secretary general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, joined the marchers. On 23 September, the Climate Summit he has called is expected to draw more than 120 heads of government to, as the UN puts it, “galvanise action on climate change”.

Ban said he hoped the peoples’ voices will be “truly reflected to the leaders” when they meet. “Climate change is a defining issue of our time,” he added. “There is no time to lose. If we do not take action now we will have to pay much more.” There is widespread expectation that government delegations to the summit will have “concrete initiatives and that it will provide significant momentum for a global agreement on tackling climate change”.

All this has likely been of interest to the youth, but the expectation of a new push towards a global agreement on dealing with climate change needs to be balanced by even the most cursory examination of the last 20 years of climate negotiations, under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (the UNFCCC), and particularly the last four years of an ever larger number of meetings all of which have singly and together contributed nothing to any hoped-for global agreement.

Nonetheless, climate change continues, the science gathers experience and the evidence accumulates. Moreover, it has become clear that a climate treaty (if and when it is signed) will not be about a single issue. Climate change is one amongst an inter-connected web of subjects related to development, sustainability, habitats and settlements, equity and justice, trade, public and social institutions, technology, investments and finance, innovation and national priorities. In many ways, the responses to climate change are directly influenced by thinking and practice in all these areas.

In a short new collection of working ideas, ‘The Way Forward in International Climate Policy: Key Issues and New Ideas 2014’, published and distributed by the Climate and Development Knowledge Network, the thesis that is advanced is: “research suggests that economic and ecological aims can co-exist, and even reinforce each other”. This may be partly true but is also contestable. As the CDKN collection also has pointed out, political tensions persist between economic growth and development on the one hand (but these should more correctly be called business and industry interests), and environmental sustainability on the other.

The term ‘sustainable development’ has engaged policy-makers and academics for 40 years now, and remains central to a set of goals (and large numbers of ‘targets’ and indicators) which will be finalised by the UN this year. Much more swiftly, ‘green growth’ has come forward as a competing idea, because ‘growth’ sounds more powerful to industry and investors, whereas ‘sustainability’ seems to imply conservation and status quo.

Historical contributions to greenhouse gases and the socio-political Southern view.

The marchers in New York may harbour some ideas about fairness, equity and the ethical issues surrounding climate change and those it affects. These concepts have indeed been highlighted by the IPCC climate change mitigation and adaptation reports. Although necessary, these concepts may be interpreted and implemented within the framework of national priorities and goals, yet the connections – between the concepts around equity, between what happens on the ground, and between the thickets of negotiating text – must be made.

Fairness between countries also underlies the idea of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ which many of the so-called ‘developing’ and the so-called ‘less developed’ countries invoke during climate negotiations. It is a concept seen as being one of the key principles of the UNFCCC and a central element of fairness and equity discussions. But it has lead to intractable arguments that pit South versus North. Who should bear the burden of investments towards adaptation and mitigation and who should benefit? Without internationally agreed climate action costs continue to mount: how should these be dealt with? Unfortunately, these questions are debated in the UN and at international negotiations not by those affected but by the financial institutions and their technology providers.

The 23 September UN Climate Summit has already focused on public spectacle and visual stylistics in the days before the meeting, rather than outline the substantial and very delayed points of discussion. The UN headquarters has been lit up with what is described as “a spectacular 30-storey architectural projection show aimed to inspire global citizens to take climate action” which is to provide a “visual reminder of what is at stake”. This is wasteful and distracting – those who have been affected by climate change in its many forms have no need to be reminded by expensive spectacle half a world away.

That is why, 22 years after countries joined the UNFCCC, there remains a clear contrast between the urgency of the situation and the absence of any significant response from the political establishment. The urgency is:

(1) The hottest March-May period in the global record which has pushed numerous record spikes in the global measures this summer. By August, according to NASA, the global average had again climbed to new high levels. NASA showed that the Global Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Index had climbed to 0.70 degrees Celsius above the mid 20th century average and about 0.95 degrees Celsius above the 1880s average. The previous record high for the period was set in 2011 at 0.69 degrees C above the global 1951 to 1980 average.

(2) For the first time, monthly concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere topped 400 parts per million (ppm) in April 2014 throughout the northern hemisphere. “This threshold is of symbolic and scientific significance and reinforces evidence that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities are responsible for the continuing increase in heat-trapping greenhouse gases warming our planet.” All the northern hemisphere monitoring stations forming the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) Global Atmosphere Watch network reported record atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the seasonal maximum. This occurs early in the northern hemisphere spring before vegetation growth absorbs CO2.

The contrast between urgency and the response of the world’s political leaders has occurred, in large part, due to the contradiction which climate negotiations carefully steer around – it is not possible to resolve climate change and other major environmental problems within the framework of a macro-economic system based on GDP growth and monetary expansion. For this reason, the perspective on which the People’s Climate March was organised offers no way forward and will contribute little to a lasting and fair climate treaty.

Five months ago the secretary general of the World Meteorlogical Organisation warned that “time is running out” when the 400 ppm was crossed. “This should serve as yet another wakeup call about the constantly rising levels of greenhouse gases which are driving climate change. If we are to preserve our planet for future generations, we need urgent action to curb new emissions of these heat trapping gases.” he said. Growth and consumption – green or sustainable or otherwise – is not the answer. And a recognition of that essential condition must be the starting point at the UN Climate Summit on 23 September 2014.

– Rahul Goswami

What the middle class must unlearn

July 1, 2014 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are currently dominating debates on development policy worldwide. The German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) has published a policy paper that recommends the inclusion of a comprehensive environmental goal entitled “safeguarding Earth system services” in the catalogue of new sustainable development goals (SDGs).

The aim of this goal is to bring development paths in line with ecological boundaries, so that human progress can be ensured. In order to operationalise this goal, the WBGU has recommended integrating six targets to protect the climate, the soils and biological diversity. The WGBU points out that compliance with ecological boundaries in the form of “planetary guard rails” is a prerequisite for poverty eradication and development. Taking them into account does not imply restrictions on the future development of the poorest 2 billion people. Rather, in the long term development will only be possible within these planetary guard rails.

“Consumption decisions and lifestyles of the middle and upper classes are causing the greatest threat to the natural life-support systems,” the policy paper has said, because of their high level of resource consumption or high per-capita CO2 emissions. Policy-makers therefore have a responsibility to create the necessary requirements for sustainable production and consumption patterns.

The Western Ghats and its two reports

June 6, 2014 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has decided to reduce the area of the ecologically sensitive zone (ESZ) in the Western Ghats. The Ministry has issued a draft notification keeping the boundaries of ESZ in Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu the same as those proposed by the Kasturirangan Committee. The draft notification declares 56,825 square kilometres as ESZ in the six Western Ghats states.

However, as the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has pointed out, the earlier Gadgil panel (here is the link to the full Gadgil report) identified the entire Ghats as ESZ, creating three categories of protection regimes and listed activities that would be allowed in each based on the level of ecological richness and land use. On the other hand the Kasturirangan panel used a different method. It removed cash crop plantations like rubber, agricultural fields and settlements from ESZ.

It did so by using a finer remote sensing technology. In this way, the Kasturirangan report’s area of ESZ is 37% of the Western Ghats, still a very large 60,000 hectares but less than half the 137,000 hectares proposed by Gadgil.