Opinion What should India’s goal be during its G20 presidency?

Another aspect of this is the distance up to which GHG can travel from the emitting source in the atmosphere. As compared to pollutant gases like sulphur dioxide, which can at best travel up to a few hundred kilometres, carbon dioxide can travel up to thousands of kilometres. So, while excessive sulphur dioxide emissions could cause acid rain (rainwater containing sulphuric acid) in areas near the emitting source, GHG could potentially impact climate in places far away from the source.

The Industrial Revolution in the 19th century and industrialisation in the world added to great volumes of GHG in the atmosphere over time. Unfortunately, the realisation of their adverse impact on climate came quite late.

International climate change negotiations amongst different countries under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) framework started only in 1994. In some ways, the damage had already been done by then.
Surprisingly, many sceptics still don’t believe in the adverse climatic impact of GHG.

GHG targets discussed in COP meetings under the UNFCCC framework largely focus on containing inflows of new emissions, which would add to the GHG stock already in the atmosphere. While the commitment to check inflows is important, what is equally or more important is to reduce the already existing huge stock.

To address this, substantial financial resources and the latest technologies are required. Developed countries, which are responsible for creating this mess in the first place and have the better financial capacity and technological capability, have to bear the major burden for this. They need to provide funds to developing countries and facilitate technology transfers. This is the basic philosophy behind the “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” principle.

Unfortunately, despite all the talk, this is not happening. In the COP meeting in Copenhagen in 2009, developed countries pledged to channel $100 billion a year to developing countries by 2020 to help them adapt to and mitigate climate change. This pledge is nowhere near being honoured. Developed countries have tried to further confuse the matter with accounting issues. Many have come out with various win-win solutions trying to obfuscate the need for financial transfers. If everyone was indeed winning, there would have been no point in wasting time, energy and resources of 197 countries in annual COP meetings.

Some sympathisers of developed countries cite the prevalent global macroeconomic conditions as difficult and feel that it may not be the right time for them to meet their financial commitments. Such arguments must be rubbished.

This is the debt developed countries owe to developing countries. In accounting parlance, repayment of debt has been accorded the top priority in the waterfall mechanism for meeting liabilities. In fact, $100 billion per year is a minuscule amount considering that trillions of dollars will be needed to meet the 2015 Paris COP goals.

Climate change is a tragedy of the commons. The concerns can be addressed only if all jurisdictions collectively stick to the script and perform their allocated role honestly and with integrity. This is wishful thinking. In fact, international climate change negotiations have become game theorists’ delight.

Excessive hot weather, untimely and excessive rains, flooding and extreme climatic conditions this year have affected people across the world. It is, however, the poor and developing countries in Africa, South Asia and Latin America which suffer the most due to a lack of resources to deal with the problem. Even if these countries were to follow the emissions discipline strictly individually, they might still suffer the climate change consequences.

When it comes to survival, there is little option for anyone but to take required precautionary or adaptive measures to the best of their capabilities. No one wants to hear a lecture on this from developed countries. What is fundamentally and ethically wrong is that developed countries hold developing countries responsible for emission inflows when they aren’t honouring their own commitments.

India with 17.7 per cent of the world’s population, 30 per cent of the world’s cattle population, 2.4 per cent of the world’s surface area, 4 per cent of the water resources, 55 per cent of energy needs met by coal and only a $2,200 per capita per annum income, has its back against the wall while participating in international forums on climate change negotiations. It is advisable to commit less in these negotiations, retain the domestic policy space, and deliver more than committed.

India has shown leadership in declaring voluntary, ambitious NDCs in Paris, followed by bold commitments in COPs thereafter. This is likely to motivate others, especially developing countries, to follow. But this is certainly not enough and may only serve a limited purpose.

India should use its global stature, lobbying power and leadership to take the bull by its horns – make developed countries do what they should rightly be doing, be it during the COP meetings on climate change or in other forums like G-20. As India takes over the G-20 presidency, this should be our main agenda. The developed country members of G-20 routinely corner developing countries over the subsidy issue in these meetings. It is time now to show them the mirror.

The writer is a former IAS Officer and a former chairman of SEBI