Opinion Emission impossible?

India made the same points at L’Aquila as it has been making for some time. First,that the industrialised West is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon emissions. Second,and because of the first,India’s (and other industrialising countries’) climate change obligations must allow for the West’s past carbon sins. Therefore,third,India cannot agree to an overall emission cut protocol. Fourth,India’s total carbon emission may be high but because it has a large number of poor,its per capita emission is very low. So,fifth,India will look at the West’s per capita emission figure as the ceiling. It will not cross that,but it will not accept protocols that prevent its per capita emission from reaching that level.

There is logical elegance in this position and India’s negotiators,famously tough,must be making these points well. China and Brazil,among other major non-Western countries,are also making similar points. All of them are wrong. But let’s concentrate on India here.

Here is the rebuttal to the official Indian position. Yes,the West’s contribution to global warming is overwhelming. And yes,its corrective efforts must be the biggest. But,no,that shouldn’t be the starting point for India’s negotiating position. The starting point should be India’s own economic-technological structure.

The economic structure is defined by the following. First,India is not a regular poor country but a country with a sophisticated establishment and an economy that has demonstrated its capacity to address mass poverty. By per capita income,India is still very unimpressive. But if the world went by per capita data,India would not be a regular invitee at global high tables. It’s India’s size and potential which are attractive. So,if India bases the emission protocol argument on per capita data,it’s open to charges of hiding behind its poor. When India’s current total emission is pointed out,it should not say size doesn’t matter.

Second,India’s industrial ambitions should be basically non-negotiable. But why must the character of its industrialisation be non-negotiable? Nandan Nilekani has made the point on his wonderful blog that on climate change-related policy India has a flexibility that the West does not. The West’s economies are fully built around high-emission infrastructure and high-emission habits. That is tough to change. But India has the option of building an industrial base that’s significantly less carbon-emitting. We do not have to change all our habits and discard most of our old infrastructure; we have to acquire new technologies as we develop. The second is easier than the first. Incidentally,India is in a better position than China on the issue of this flexibility.

This brings up India’s technological structure. A number of studies make two basic points on this. First,India’s technology absorption capacity is low. Second,India’s R&D spending is low. The conclusion is that on its own,and at this point of time,India’s indigenous ability to develop cleantech (environmentally-friendly technology) is not high.

Plus,India’s current industrial efforts are very carbon-intensive (three times as much per unit of GDP as the United States’). And domestic environment compliance levels are poor. The World Bank estimates more than half of India’s big industry does not follow pollution norms. Small and medium industry does not even bother to think about these norms.

Together,the low technological absorption capacity and the dirty industry habits might seem like a problem. They suggest India should take it easy on emission control for some time. But actually they can be an advantage,provided India takes the right political approach to climate change negotiations.

That approach would be based on India’s self-recognition that it is a potential economic power that (a) has climate change-related commitments,and (b) needs to improve for its own interest its domestic environment compliance record. But since everything is a matter of negotiation,its agreement on an overall emission cut protocol will depend on its easy access to cleantech. India will then tell the West that if you want us to join you in emission cap agreement,let’s create a global regime where commercial premium on new technologies will not prevent its quick diffusion to big industrialising economies like ours.

The cleantech industry in the US is a major Obama ally and likely will not be very happy at a regime that weakens patent protection. Patent protection is a good thing. But careful exemptions can and have been made. The best example is global trade negotiations allowing compulsory licensing on pharma products. Critical drugs required by very poor countries can be made by countries with strong indigenous pharma industries — India,for example.

That argument was won in WTO because there was a compelling case based on broader public good and India,thanks to its pharma industry,was in a position of strength. An easier cleantech patent regime will come about only if a similar broad public good — major emerging economies’ right to make their people more prosperous — is married to a position of strength — their offer of an emission cap.

Between now and December,when the Copenhagen global summit on climate change happens,

India must decide whether to hide behind its poor or whether to showcase its strengths.

saubhik.chakrabarti@expressindia.com