Thriving trade in hot air

Of course the dominant logic animating the protocol today is that the global market on carbon trading will take care of global warming but as a recent study reminds us: “For the emitter countries it makes full sense to pin their hopes on a successful global market in carbon trade; for low-lying Least Developed Countries most vulnerable to climate change, the possibility of failure, even if remote, is both unacceptable and unimaginable.”

In principle carbon trading is more a compromise against the sway of the twin forces of globalisation and consumerism, rather than a conviction that it is the best route to clearer climate. It is noticeable that even as what is referred to by some as “turbo capitalism” (as distinguished from the “strictly controlled capitalism” of the Post Second World War period) has been sweeping through most of the world, especially over the last decade or so, the Kyoto Protocol is drifting away from its essential premise of furthering sustainable development. Indeed, both the protocol and its parent, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), had the pursuit of sustainable development as their clearly stated goals. The Framework Convention said, “the parties have a right to, and should promote sustainable development policies and measures to protect the climate system against human induced change” — even as the protocol required parties to achieve “its quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments under Article 3 in order to promote sustainable development.” In fact the assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2001 made clear that the supposed dichotomy between the global objective of climate policy and sustainable development policy is false. Yet the dichotomy exists and will continue to do so as long as economics keep scoring over ecology. This is where the real challenge of the Kyoto Protocol lies.

Sustainable development along with its concomitant principles of inter and intra generational equity need to return as the planks on which the international regime to combat climate change should rest. Instead of celebrating the acceding of countries to the protocol we need to take note of actions — whether global, national or local — that pay heed and contribute to integrating climate policy with sustainable development.

The fact that now Russia is going to be in and US stays out is followed by everyone, but, for example, the real concrete measures to stabilise gas emissions by the governor of California is not adequately known, highlighted or appreciated. California, in sharp contrast to the US stand on the Kyoto Protocol, is putting into effect legislation that allows hybrid vehicles while extending tailpipe controls to older vehicles, tightening pollution limits on ships and specifically mandating by law 30 per cent reduction of carbon dioxide by all vehicles in the next 12 years.

Understandably The Wall Street Journal saw in this the governor’s lack of leadership as he has “let environmentalists run roughshod over business and consumers”. The fight against warmer climes surely has local contexts. For the same reason India’s attempt to put sustainable development as the central agenda in the Draft National Environment Policy 2004 is also noteworthy. These examples show that global crises can begin to be challenged by local actions and that there may be a need to look beyond Annexure 1 of the Protocol that lists the nations acceding to the protocol.