Opinion Fighting 2° Celsius
Would we like it if our forefathers had set slow fire to the world,a fire that crested into visibility during our lifetime,and left it to us to deal with the problem?
Would we like it if our forefathers had set slow fire to the world,a fire that crested into visibility during our lifetime,and left it to us to deal with the problem? This is what climate change,a global externality,has been to us and our behaviour would determine what it would be like for our descendants. There is responsibility to act,both on ethical and prudential grounds and business as usual attitudes must give way in order to ensure a viable climate future.
As climate models become more precise,it is evident that GHG emissions and other indicators are hovering near the upper boundary of IPCC projections. These include global mean surface temperature,sea-level rise,global ocean temperature,Arctic sea ice extent,ocean acidification,and extreme climatic events. We are now at 0.8 degree but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is already enough to raise the mercury to 2 degrees. This accompanies recentfindings that 1.6 trillion metric tones of CO2 that had locked into Artic permafrost awaits melting as global warming increases.
Notwithstanding the fractious scenes at the G8 Summit,new ideas are desperately needed for fashioning an international framework that ensures that the worlds major economies contribute equitably and effectively to the global climate effort,so as to limit global warming to 2°C,with a caveat that weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of crossing tipping points and make meeting 2050 targets tougher.
Therefore at Copenhagen,it is imperative to engage all major economies in a flexible international framework in which countries assume commitments best suited to their circumstances. Within such a variegated framework,some countries could have binding emission targets as under Kyoto,while others may commit to undertake national policies that reduce emissions such as efficiency standards,renewable energy targets,or measures to reduce deforestation sans any economy-wide emission limits. Some,in addition,could participate in sectoral agreements on targets,standards,or other measures addressing emissions from particular sectors.
Introducing this multi-track system provides a smooth transition into its different tracks. Consistent with UNFCCC fairness and common-but-differentiated-responsibility principle,countries would transition towards the next level well in time. This will enable each country to choose a pathway that best aligns the global interest in climate action with its own evolving national interests by precluding targets that impose enormous economic costs on them.
Thus,we need mix of egalitarian per capita approach (roughly 4.2 t/cap CO2 emissions for non-Annex countries),a variant of contraction and convergence principle that enjoins developing countries gradually to increase their emissions and a cap and trade approach which fixes responsibility primarily on developed countries by allotting them fixed quota to forestall emissions until,after a transition period,everyone has the same emission rights as others. That is,every country is given reason to feel that it is only doing its fair share,comparable to what others have done before it.
India must lead at Copenhagen by agreeing,in principle,to limit the global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius in the interest of its vast population who is living under climate stress conditions. In this context,PM Manmohan Singhs clear message to the states to come up with action plans to combat climate change that tends to threaten the fragile ecosystems and develop strategies consistent with those identified in the National Action Plan on Climate Change is a welcome step. The fetishism on growth ought to be avoided and the traditional command and control environmental mechanism in India needs to be strengthened into a cap and trade system which harnesses the forces of supply and demand to change behaviour and achieve environmental goals by supervising energy-intensive industries thereby limiting emissions from major industrial sources,including power plants,factories,refineries and electricity and natural gas distributors and giving complying industries a more level playing field. Innovative projects may include allowing companies to meet emission-limiting targets by investing in offset projects such as tree plantation and forest protection. At the same time,a distinction between survival and luxury emissions between poor and urban rich in India must be drawn by exempting emissions from agriculture and other relevant sectors from the cap,to avoid a free-rider problem while achieving environmental goals.
The writer is associate professor at the Faculty of Law,University of Jammu.
Share
