Caution: Cleaners at work

An authoritative body of world scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change set up in 1988, concluded in 1995 that 8220;there is a discernible human influence on global climate8221; which is leading to a warming of the earth, rising sea levels, greater risks of floods and droughts and, perhaps, a consequent fall in food output.

The principal villain of the piece is carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere, much as the glass in a greenhouse prevents rising warm air from escaping. It is emitted when fossil fuels are burnt or when automobiles burn up petrol.

The representatives of over 150 countries participating in the Framework Convention on Climate Change at Kyoto this week are hoping to thresh out an agreement on binding reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases, starting with a cut in carbon dioxide emissions. But it is the pace of emission reductions that is the cause of disagreement between the US and the industrialised countries of Europe as well as Japan.

The European Union EU wants to push through even greater cuts in the emissions of greenhouse gases to 15 per cent below the 1990 levels by 2010 and by 7.5 per cent at least by 2005. Japan has set a variable target between 0 and 5 per cent to cut emissions below 1990 levels by 2008-2012 but with flexible individual timetables for each country.

Dictating by its strong industrial lobbies, the United States favours capping emissions to 1990 levels by the years 2008 to 2012, but without any reductions. This stabilisation of emission levels, they argue, would mean a 28-per cent reduction from what such emissions would otherwise be in 2010.

The Europeans have dismissed the American offer as being 8220;weak, ineffectual and completely unambitious8221; and which do not measure up to Washington8217;s responsibilities as the world8217;s leading polluter and leading superpower. The Kyoto conference opened to the sounds of this slanging match.

Many other areas of dispute among the industrialised countries remain to be resolved, as for instance, which are the gases to be included in the treaty. While the US insists on restrictions on emissions of all six greenhouse gases, the Europeans feel only the three major ones need to be included in the treaty.

Washington8217;s proposal of a system of international trading on pollution credits has not found many takers. The Europeans have rejected this plan saying that the rich industrialised countries would simply buy up the 8220;trading points8221; of poor countries without making any commitments on emission cuts. The bone of contention at Kyoto, however, will be the kind of restrictions sought to be imposed on the developing countries. Fact is that the inequities of development and industrialisation are reflected in the amounts of carbon dioxide emissions as well. Consumption levels of emission-causing appliances and automobiles in the US are 40 times higher than those in the developing countries. What this means is that while American populations may be growing by three million a year, in consumption terms, it adds up to 120 million people each year.

Developing countries believe that the 8220;polluter pays8221; principal must govern cut-backs on emission levels. But at the Rio summit, the developing countries had made a major concession by not insisting on this stance. Instead, they agreed to the more accommodative 8220;shared but differentiated responsibility8221;, although they insisted on the industrialised countries, more specifically the US, picking up a fair share of the tab.

Even though the European countries have now agreed to the view that developing countries should not be saddled with the burden of the clean-up, the US has hardened its stance. The Clinton Administration, faced with a recalcitrant Senate, now states that it will agree to a cutback on greenhouse gases only if developing countries agree to cuts as well. China, India and South Korea, potential economic competitors of the US, were singled out for special mention as the three countries that had to be 8220;engaged8221; in any future agreement on climate change. Washington also claims that China and India, the world8217;s most populous nations, will also be the biggest polluters by the year 2020.

The argument of the developing countries is simple. Let the affluent countries, which account for 20 per cent of the global population yet cause over 80 per cent of the emissions, pay the damages. From the Rio Earth Summit to the Berlin Mandate, the consensus seems to have been that the developing countries would have no additional commitments which could impinge on their economic growth.

The task ahead of the Indian delegation will be tricky. To facilitate a Kyoto protocol that pins down the industrialised countries with time-bound targets into reducing their emission levels while ensuring that the aspirations of the developing countries are not sat upon by the developed world should be tricky. India should also take the lead in insisting that developed nations agree to the transfer to the developing world, clean energy-producing technologies. The whole world stands to gain from such transfers.