Opinion Bound by omissions

But the disarray and confusion in the negotiating team in Copenhagen is just the symptom of a bigger problem — the general disinterest in the establishment (at the political level) in dealing with this important issue. Somehow,the government has given the impression that either climate change was an issue on which India did not need to do anything at all (that would explain the continued insistence on the unsustainable and defensive per capita emissions as a target position until the last minute) or that at best it was an issue that should be left to bureaucrats and other “experts” to deal with.

What we seem to have completely overlooked is the huge political,diplomatic and economic opportunity for leadership on this critical issue. So even when the government made a sensible shift to emissions intensity of GDP,with Jairam Ramesh’s speech in Parliament,it was probably too little,too late. The move just does not seem to have the kind of political support it deserves. Our position still appears defensive — why won’t we even consider accepting international scrutiny of our voluntary targets? And everyone from the G-77 to the G-7 is pointing fingers at India for being a thorn in the side of a potential agreement. How did we land ourselves in such a bind?

First,the government should have accepted many months ago that climate change was a political issue,not a technical one. Once that decision was made,the government should have worked to persuade public opinion that it was in India’s interest to do something about climate change. There is enough scientific research to show that developing countries like India are likely to suffer the impact of climate change disproportionately more than the rich world. It would have been even easier to convince public opinion and the wider polity that India had nothing to be defensive about on climate change.

Everyone agrees that the rich countries are largely responsible for the problem. And even among developing countries,China and Brazil have probably more to be defensive about. Unlike trade,where India once upon a time may have genuinely had reason to be defensive (we had amongst the highest trade barriers anywhere),on climate there is nothing to hide — if anything,our limited manufacturing base and underdeveloped infrastructure when compared with China and Brazil has meant that our emissions are much lower.

But winning public opinion and the political debate may not have been enough. There was bound to be opposition from industry. Ficci,in an unusual move from a chamber of industry,has officially opposed the government’s emissions intensity of GDP target. Yet again,the government missed a chance to highlight the economic opportunity for Indian industry and the economy at large from an agreement on climate change. One of the key provisions of any agreement (or even national policies on climate change in rich countries) is for carbon offsets. These offsets which may be valued in trillions of dollars will essentially transfer to developing countries for mitigation efforts. China has already made use of offsets from the European carbon trading scheme to finance a number of renewable energy projects. There would be opportunity for Indian entrepreneurs in this too.

But that is not all. Despite all the doubts and problems,we can be reasonably sure that the world will eventually take action on reducing emissions. For this,technology is critical. And when the change of technology takes place,it will be critical to be at the frontier of the new technology. For Indian industry,climate change is a great opportunity to aspire to the technological frontier they have always trailed. The government ought to have been more forceful in pointing this out. By being defensive,China will beat us to this too.

Once the domestic political and economic constituencies were satisfied that there was enough to gain by being positive and aggressive on climate change,India could have taken the diplomatic lead in international negotiations. We could have finally emerged out of our conservative mentality that negotiations are only about giving — in climate,at least for us,there is more about taking. And we should have been aggressive in cornering the rich countries to make the major concessions while being flexible ourselves. Now,that leadership opportunity is faint.

Still,all is not lost. The negotiations will likely continue beyond Copenhagen to Bonn or Mexico City next year. For the second round,the government needs to put visible political weight behind our sensible position on emissions intensity. And rethink partnerships. On climate,we cannot ally with G-7. As an aspiring major power,and an economy growing at 8-9 per cent we should not automatically fall into G-77. Brazil and South Africa,with smaller populations (and in Brazil’s case heavy forest cover),have very different interests from ours. So,how about a G-2 with China?

After all,we got our best idea,on voluntary emissions intensity cuts,from them.

The writer is a senior editor with ‘The Financial Express’

dhiraj.nayyar@expressindia.com