Recently, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released its 14th Emissions Gap Report (2023). The emission gap measures the difference between what will be our emission level by adopting mitigation/adaptation measures as planned compared to what it should be to avoid climate shocks. This report gives details of how far the world at large is away from what is required to be done to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees centigrade (oC) by 2100 when compared to the temperature during the pre-industrial period. The report was released just before the Committee of the Parties (COP28) meeting in Dubai.
The average temperature of Earth has been on the rise because there is a huge amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) being generated from energy-related activities, industry, agriculture and land use and waste. GHGs mainly comprise of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide and other synthetic gases. CO2 has a dominant share in the total GHGs and its effects can last for more than a century. Incidentally, methane is about 28 times more potent than CO2 except that its generation is much lower than CO2 and its ill-effects get wiped out in about 10 years. GHGs trap the heat in the atmosphere and prevent it from escaping into the atmosphere, leading to temperature rise. Compared to pre-industrial temperature, Earth’s mean temperature has already increased by about 1oC. This has caused unprecedented rains, floods, increased droughts, severe storms, cyclones, etc.
Most of the CO2 that is being generated is through the burning of fossil fuels for power generation and process heat (43 per cent), transport (20 per cent), manufacturing and construction (18 per cent), buildings (8 per cent), and industry (5 per cent). As far as power generation is concerned, to move away from fossil fuels, we need to adopt renewable generation, mainly solar and wind. For the transport sector, one needs to move to electric and also hydrogen-based vehicles. Replacing fossil fuels in the industrial sector is the most difficult task since renewable energy cannot supply high-intensity heat required for industries like iron and steel and aluminium.
Moving away from fossil fuels is a capital-intensive process and developing countries are not in a position to fund such activities. Hence, there is a need for the developed world to transfer not only finance but also technology. The developed world is responsible for the excessive carbon footprints and it is only natural that they pay for the damage. Logically, it is the principle of “polluter pays” which should be applicable here. Countries like the US have a cumulative CO2 emission which is 25 per cent of the global emissions and the corresponding figures for the EU and China are 22 per cent and 12.7 per cent, respectively. As compared to this, India’s cumulative emissions are only 3 per cent. In per capita terms also, it is only 1.8 tons, where the world average is 4.7 tons.
Since the past 15 years or so, there has been talk of transferring resources to the tune of $100 billion per year (which is only about 15 per cent compared to what is required to fund adequate mitigation and adaptation activities) to developing countries. But this is not really happening. OECD data, of course, tries to show that almost $80 billion per year is being transferred as of now, but this is really a statistical jugglery.
In order to combat climate change, each country has drawn up plans called nationally determined contributions (NDCs). The latest emissions gap report of the UNEP has stated that going by the latest NDCs, there is going to be a temperature rise between 2.5 oC and 2.9 oC by the turn of the century. These figures should be seen as indicative only, but they are alarming enough. Clearly, more needs to be done. It is against this background that the COP meeting is being held.
COP28 comes to a close today, but no decision has yet been taken on the most contentious issue — the global stock take report. This report will decide the way forward for climate change, especially on issues of climate equity and phasing out of fossil fuels. Thankfully, there has been some positive movement on the loss and damage fund which has been operationalised. Hopefully, some agreed text on the GST report would be arrived at.
The writer is senior visiting fellow, ICRIER, and former, Member (Economic & Commercial), CEA. Views are personal
