The argument is won, now for action

We need to summon political will to tackle climate change, make it an issue of legislative priority. There is no more room for inertia and adhocism

The debate is over. Those who have argued that the causality of global climate change is still empirically inconclusive must now not only drop the charge but also lend their weight to those who are calling for immediate and concerted international and national action. The last thousand scientific papers published on this subject have all confirmed a rise in carbon emissions and, in consequence, in global temperatures. Recently, the Stern Review of the economics of climate change was submitted to the British Prime Minister.

A summary of the report was published in these columns 8216;A climate for investment8217;, IE, October 31. It stated that 45 billion tons of greenhouse gases were leaching into the environment annually and that the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from 280 ppm parts per million prior to the industrial revolution to around 430 ppm today. It emphasised that these increases were the result of human activity. Earlier in the year, I heard Sir John Houghton, one of the world8217;s foremost meteorological scientists, present an equally stark picture. 8220;Business as usual8221; he said would swamp low lying areas like Bangladesh because of the rise in sea levels, devastate cropping patterns caused by the extremes in weather conditions and displace millions from their natural habitats. Stern and Houghton, among others, have the same message: if action is delayed the consequences will be irremediable and the price of inaction will be paid by our children. But if there is a coordinated response, emission can be stabilised at sustainable levels of 450-550 ppm.

I often ask whether this message is getting through to our decisionmakers in government and industry. I know that the ministry of environment is cognisant of the threat. Their reported involvement in a 8216;Pan Asian Eco Plan8217; is testament of their intent. I know that questions are being debated across different levels of government. What should government do to find a substitute for oil as transportation fuel? What steps need to be taken to drive down the costs of renewable energy sources? What initiatives should government provide for industry towards the development of appropriate technologies? But these questions are not catalysing concerted government action.

There is the all-encompassing explanation: government does not walk the talk. In addition, there are two specific reasons. One, officials do not see climate change as a vital strategic ingredient of public policy. It does not receive the same attention as does energy security. This may be because of lack of knowledge or underestimation of the costs, or simply because of terminology. Two, the current institutional structure does not lend itself to holistic decision-making. We have seven separate central government ministries directly or indirectly involved with energy 8212; the ministries of petroleum and natural gas, power, coal, non-conventional energy, atomic energy, the Planning Commission and the PMO. The latter two have no functional responsibility. There are therefore five cabinet ministers; five distinct bureaucracies; five constituencies and at least five groups of vested interests that have a direct bearing on energy policy.

Each ministry has an understandably narrow perspective. Its interest is in protecting its constituents and in pursuing its particular agenda. Thus, the ministry of power and/or coal will press for thermal power generation and given the current relatively high price of oil/gas and the abundance of coal reserves, it does make a compelling economic argument. The question is whether someone in government is also reviewing these arguments against the potential longer term costs of carbon emissions. Who has both the mandate and the authority to take an integrated view? Certainly the prime minister8217;s office, but then given other priorities it can hardly be expected to don the mantle of executive responsibility for all energy related matters. The Planning Commission has the mandate to review but not the authority to enforce. The ministry of environment has neither the mandate nor the authority nor the expertise. This institutional ambiguity works against bridging the gap.

National governments will indeed approach it from their own economic and energy position but the consequence of their policies will be ultimately global. It is therefore imperative that this subject be tackled at several levels 8212; national and international. A few years ago I had argued for the creation of a South Asian Forum for Energy Development SAFED. One, to draw attention to the opportunity cost of 8220;energy nationalism8221; and, two, to ask whether the pursuit of economic self-interest could help lower the political hurdles to regional cooperation. Such a forum should be contemplated today to heighten awareness of the costs of carbon emissions and to catalyse a subcontinental approach to climate change.

Ultimately, it is a matter of political will and legislative priority. In the absence of legislation, energy companies will not be incentivised to accept a renewable obligation; car manufacturers will not be encouraged to reduce CO2 emissions from new cars; builders will not improve the energy efficiency in buildings and there will be limited effort to develop the mix of technologies and energy sources to durably reduce emissions.

Story continues below this ad

Our political leaders need to understand better the consequences of adhocism and inertia. They need to understand that unless we do something soon to weaken the link between economic growth, energy demand and ecological degradation our security will be imperilled 8212; just as if energy supplies were choked off. In such circumstances our current growth story will come to an abrupt end.

The writer is chairman, Shell group of companies in India. Views expressed are his own