No American chop suey, thank you

November 13, 2014 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Barack Obama address a joint press conference following their talks at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China. Photo: Xinhua / Liu Weibing

Trade and manufacturing, geo-strategic ambitions and power jockeying, these are the objectives behind the so-called ‘deal’ between China and USA on ‘cutting’ carbon emissions and pollution. The ‘deal’ was announced at the conclusion of the 22nd Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Economic Leaders’ Summit, held in Beijing, China, and therefore partly reflected the agendas of Asian trade within the region and with the USA.

The ‘deal’ on climate between President of China Xi Jinping and US President Barack Obama indicates in the first place the internal compulsions faced by the governing leaderships that they represent in both countries. This balancing however is commonplace at economic and trade summits, where new agreements and pacts are presented as being good for the international order, but whose details reveal the truth. [Read the special India Climate Watch bulletin here.]

So it is with the Xi-Obama ‘deal’ on climate change and emissions, but with added aspects that are disturbing for the shape that the post-Kyoto framework on climate action is taking. According to media reports (mainly from the USA), representatives of the two governments have been negotiating for several months so that this ‘deal’ could be announced now.

If true, this tells us that equality of representation at international climate negotiations, and that a multi-lateral approach itself, are being ignored by the world’s biggest polluting country (China) and the world’s biggest economy (the USA, measured in current US dollars only). In preparing for such a ‘deal’ therefore, the political leaderships of both countries have signalled that their international responsibilities towards climate justice matter less than bolstering a trading system which rests on globalised production, deployment of capital and homogenous consumption.

The IPCC’s advice on reaching resilience during an era of changing climate. Quite ignored by the leadership of the two biggest polluting countries. Image: IPCC

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, issued a statement welcoming this ‘deal’. In it Ban has welcomed “the joint announcement” by the two leaders “of their post-2020 action on climate change, as an important contribution to the new climate agreement to be reached in Paris next year”. The UN must perforce look for some positive element in any such ‘deal’, but calling it an important contribution to COP 21 (conference of parties) to be held in Paris in 2015 is misleading.

Ban’s own statement has mentioned the need for “a meaningful, universal agreement in 2015” however the Beijing announcement signals that the opposite will ensue – economic and trading blocs will continue to advance their separate agendas and so subordain the responses required to climate change.

Ban has also welcomed “the commitment expressed by both leaders to increase their level of ambition over time as well as the framing of their actions in recognition of the goal of keeping global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius”.

This too is not so. The Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (maintained by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre) has said that the required reduction in the increase in global CO2 emissions can be achieved provided: (a) China achieves its own target of a maximum level of energy consumption by 2015 and its shift to gas with a natural gas share of 10% by 2020; (b) the USA continues a shift its energy mix towards more gas and renewable energy; and (c) European Union member states agree on restoring the effectiveness of the EU Emissions Trading System to further reduce actual emissions. The actions thus outlined for the USA and China will under the new ‘deal’ either not take place or be loosely and ineffectually interpreted.

The view of China’s political establishment is visible in the treatment of the climate ‘deal’ by its official media. In its commentary on the Xi-Obama meeting, Xinhua, the state news agency, explained that President Xi Jinping “outlined six priorities in building a new type of major-country relationship with the United States”. The language and manner indicate that what is being presented in the media as a ‘landmark deal’ between the two countries on climate change is in fact part of a continuing re-negotiation of the roles of both countries in today’s world.

Special bulletin of the India Climate Watch on the China-USA climate ‘deal’.

The six priorities (this label follows the typical political construction of policy China – for years the ‘three represents’ of the Chinese Communist Party had guided state thinking) are: communication between high-level officials, mutual respect, cooperation in all aspects, management of disputes, collaboration in the Asia-Pacific and joint actions on global challenges. The response to climate change is part of the sixth priority, joint actions on global challenges (which also includes counter-terrorism and epidemic control). In its official statement on the ‘deal’, China has pointed out that in 2013 bilateral trade between the USA and the People’s Republic soared to US$ 520 billion while two-way investment stood at US$ 100 billion. This volume and flow is what will be protected to the extents possible by both governments.

The staged euphoria over this ‘deal’ does not obscure its non-binding nature. According to commentary from the People’s Republic, 2030 would be set as the peak year for its soaring greenhouse gas emissions, while the USA said it would cut emissions by more than a quarter from 2005 levels by 2025.

Data from the International Energy Agency show that for the USA, total final oil products consumption in 2012 was 717 million tons of oil equivalent (mtoe; in 2007 the quantity was 829 mtoe) while the totals for all energy sources were 1,432 mtoe in 2012 which was a reduction from 1,572 mtoe in 2007). In China, total final oil products consumption in 2012 was 421 mtoe (in 2007 it was 308 mtoe) while the use of coal continued to rise – 558 mtoe in 2012 whereas it was 480 mtoe in 2007. In China the totals for all energy sources was 1,703 mtoe in 2012 which is 28% above what it was (1,326 mtoe) five years earlier.

A rapid analysis carried out by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) indicates that: (1) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the USA in 2025 will be 5 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; from 1990 levels, the USA will reduce its emissions by just 15-17% by 2025; to meet the 2C target, US emissions should be at least 50-60% per cent below 1990 levels considering its historical responsibility of causing climate change, and (2) China’s emissions will peak at 17-20 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030 and its per capita emissions in 2030 will be 12-13 tons; these are not in line with the 2C emissions pathways put forth by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC has, less than a fortnight ago, presented the need for what it bluntly calls “zero net emissions” by 2100 – and that means changing economies and trade and the trend of globalisation now – to avert the worst. But the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, has called the China-US climate ‘deal’ “a heartening development, a good beginning and I hope the global community follows this lead and maybe builds on it”. This is certainly not the lead to follow, for it ignores the IPCC’s stark warning, and instead signals that global and regional powers can bully their way to gaining sanction for furthering their short-term economic agendas even while climate science demands that they do otherwise.

– Rahul Goswami

Climate measures that matter

October 8, 2014 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

India has been saying during the last several international negotiations about climate change that our country, like other ‘developing’ countries, has a right to development. What this means is India has officially said our country will continue to burn coal and petroleum products in quantities that contribute to India emitting 1.954 million tons of CO2 a year (this figure is for 2012).

The ‘developed’ world (mostly countries in western Europe and North America) point to this large quantity and demand that India (and China, which emits very much more) do something to halt this rise and to decrease it. India’s response has been – recognise what you have done from the time of the Industrial Revolution and then we’ll resume talking.

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).

That is why, when we look at the relationship between these three measures for a country, and between countries for any one of these three measures, we see connections that are otherwise missed due to a focus on a single measure. Our diagram, ‘Climate Measures that Matter’, helps explain these connections. It can be used as an aide to understanding better India’s position at climate negotiations, and provides much-needed context to the arguments about a country’s total emissions and its per capita emissions. [See the statement by Minster for Environment Prakash Javadekar, at the United Nations Climate Summit 2014.]

This diagram is an aide to understanding better India’s position at climate negotiations. It provides much-needed context to the arguments about a country’s total emissions and its per capita emissions.

The country and energy data used in this diagram is for the latest year which is 2012. The source for the data is the International Energy Agency’s ‘Key World Energy Statistics 2014’ . This selection of countries compares countries of South Asia, East Asia, the larger economies of the OECD, the BRICS, other European countries, and countries of the Middle East. For each of the three measures, the size of the circles are relative to each other.

[The full size image is available here (png. 266kb). This diagram is distributed under a creative commons licence (2014) by the India Climate Portal. Reproduce only with full attribution.]

One could argue that the relationship between three measures for any country shows its responsibilities towards curbing the use of fossil fuels both nationally and individually, and towards capping electricity use. For example, per capita electricity use in a number of the countries shown in the diagram is seven or eight times more, and even ten times more and above, than India’s use.

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 that we share with our neighbours.

The diagram helps display some of the most glaring and conspicuous differences between countries’ impacts on the atmosphere and ecosphere. These differences can be taken to mean fuel use and consumption must be halted and stringently curbed, whether or not the Kyoto Protocol and a successor treaty exist. That would be the way of acting responsibly for a country. [See the text of the Joint Statement issued at the 18th BASIC Ministerial Meeting on Climate Change in August 2014.]

These differences can also mean that the ‘developed’ countries recognise – as we and many ‘developing’ and ‘less developed’ countries have been reminding them repeatedly – that the way their economies and societies have functioned has caused much of the problem in the first place, and they must stop shunting the onus of responsibility onto us.

Finally, these differences should also show why being small is not being ‘poor’ and ‘less developed’. Households and families that use few kilowatts instead of many, burn few litres of fuel instead of many, are very much more responsible and environmentally balanced than others. It is the small circles in this diagram that ought to be the inspiration.

Climate Measures that Matter by India Climate Portal / Rahul Goswami is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

At home and abroad

August 18, 2014 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

The size and diversity of India’s federal structure (36 states and union territories) is steering this government towards an arrangement wherein the assessment of development needs and outcomes is carried out at least at the state level. As the new India Climate Watch has pointed out, this is where India’s contribution to the international climate change negotiations appears quite out of phase with the climate aspect of development discussions and actions in these 36 states and union territories.

We ask whether the state action plans on climate change (some of which in their final forms are now several years old) are fit for the task of guiding policy at this level, a serious and urgent question which, in our view, ought to precede India’s taking of international positions on climate change adaptation and mitigation measures (including financing and technology transfer).

With the meeting of the BASIC group of countries on 7-8 August 2014 in New Delhi, a stretch of negotiating has begun for India which will continue with greater intensity until the 21st Conference of Parties in Paris in December 2015. This is seen by climate negotiators as the final stretch of the Kyoto Protocol period and we can expect a flurry of weighty summations to be produced during this time, which may influence how the successor to the Kyoto Protocol will begin to be framed, a procedure that COP 21 will be devoted to.

For India, this period will proceed in parallel with the first term of the NDA government, which will be expected to deliver much more substantial leadership on matters of equity in the international arena, and which is already committed to strengthening the federal approach at home. Our view is that these are not exclusive, and that one can guide the other.

Under direction from the central government, our states have been preparing climate action plans geared to their conditions. The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change reports that 28 of these plans have been prepared, and how these will integrate with the economic and social imperatives that each state government frames differently has not been explored. Until that happens as a policy commitment, the state action plans remain academic exercises with action on the ground in the form of relatively small projects channelled through ‘technology transfer’ agencies. These may help indicate how feasible a future course is but which is weak without state government and industry resolve. [Click this link for the India Climate Watch 2014 03 (pdf 186kb).]

Cows, scooters and climate talks

July 27, 2014 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

To what degree should international negotiation be India’s major theoretical activity when dealing with climate change? To what extent do India’s negotiators at the UNFCCC annual series of meetings represent its people at home, and if so through which channels? How are governance and determination of choices at the local level in India – choices that can lead to more communities becoming more responsible about their climate change impacts – translated by our negotiators at annual international meetings? These are some of the questions we find need to be asked more sharply, and more persistently, and for which we wish to hear answers.

Commentaries like ‘A map and a compass for climate talks’, by Navroz K Dubash and Lavanya Rajamani of the Centre for Policy Research (published in The Hindu, 23 July 2014), give us an interesting glimpse of the world that our international climate talks negotiators inhabit, but it has not posed such questions nor helped provide answers. This is the dialectic that needs to change, and quickly. It is 17 years since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted and every year thereafter, the number of meetings for negotiations has increased and the numbers of those who are now experts at negotiations has swelled at an ever faster rate. This new and hyper-mobile population of negotiators cannot claim any success, however minor, that has come from this annual festival of discussion (carried out by spending taxpayers’ money). What then is their use, to us in India especially?

In their article, Dubash and Rajamani have provided a rapid account of the adoption of negotiating positions by India and the differences between them at different periods. They have illustrated this by referring to articles written recently by former Environment and Forests Minister Jairam Ramesh and by Chandrashekhar Dasgupta, described as “a mainstay of India’s negotiating team for two decades”. Given the failure rate of the annual round of climate change negotiations, the strategical quibbling by both Ramesh and Dasgupta are of very little use locally in India. That is why we think the Centre for Policy Research and similar institutes and establishments which study climate change in all its perplexing colours (none of them more frustrating than the UN negotiations) must alter the subject – to the ‘whom’ of people where they live rather than the ‘what’ of negotiating positions.

The two authors, looking ahead to “the next landmark climate negotiating session” – we ask that empty hyperbole like ‘landmark’ be dropped from a process that is nothing but 20 years of getting nowhere expensively – have said it is time to “look forward and anticipate how a principled approach, strategic vision, political acumen and technical expertise can be better combined in India’s negotiating approach”. Surely, Ramesh and Dasgupta (perhaps in reverse order) ought to be bluntly asked why India has not had a principled approach, strategic vision, political acumen and technical expertise which – and we emphasise this – helps deal with climate change locally, in the districts and towns, and which then becomes the position that India takes in the crowded climate talks ballrooms of the world?

The commentary is worried about preparations to be made before the next big meeting in 2015. The usual formula is there – “national contributions”, “emissions mitigation component”, “adaptation, finance, technology and capacity building” and (best of all for the financiers who haunt every COP) “proposed investments”. The authors then refer to the Economic Survey 2013-14, which has a chapter (it is chapter 12, out of place amongst the others as if it wandered in from some storybook) on climate change. This they say mentions the need to develop contributions but that this mention has come very late – cue Messers Dasgupta and Ramesh for sepia-toned explanations.

And finally, the authors complain that “there is little evidence of a serious national dialogue on such contributions, which is critical to ensuring ownership of, responsibility for and delivery of these contributions across levels of governance and segments of society”. They could have spoken more plainly. There is no dialogue, because the central and state governments have not invested in dialogue (ask Ramesh how he got his government to invest in an excellent national discussion about Bt brinjal), and because our negotiators at COP, CMP, SBI and SBSTA never bothered to ask for it either. Who did it suit to cloak climate negotiations as being about technology, finance and law to an exclusively expert degree, thereby shutting the citizen out?

What we wish to hear very much of – and the Ministry has not obliged – is where the priorities of the BJP-led NDA government mesh (or clash) with the theory of a multi-lateral approach to climate change negotiations (now 20 years old). The climate circuit and its habitues in (and from) India have become used to the vocabulary of the circuit, so used to it that they have neglected to learn some of the other vocabularies found in documents such as the Union Budget speech and the Economic Survey, which have very much less to do with multi-lateral feinting at UNFCCC meetings and very much more to do with gritty economics at home. It isn’t too late for India to sound more like Gorakhpur than like Geneva at such talks, and only when that happens will we see tehsil and municipality begin to respond – the ‘equity’ that India is said to be a champion of at the negotiations can only have substance if it begins at home.

– Rahul Goswami

A binding deal at Cancun – why India must do the right thing – 9 Dec 2010

December 9, 2010 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

A binding deal at Cancun – why India must do the right thing

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.