IF FILMS and publications can warm up a public issue, global warming is a clear frontrunner. First came Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth, then a book with the same title early last year. The U.K. Government's Stern Report arrived in September, the Fourth Assessment Report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came in February 2007, and its latest report on April 6.

The film and the reports are unequivocal in their message that a warming-induced apocalypse is well on the way and that humans are responsible for as much as 90 per cent of the observed warming of 0.6 degree Celsius over 150 years. The release of carbon dioxide by the burning of coal and oil for power generation, transportation, and other purposes, and of methane from paddy fields, large water storages, and enteric fermentation of cattle, have been identified as the main contributing factors. If business goes on as usual then global temperatures may rise by 3 to 5 degrees this century. This will result in the sea-level rise inundating large coastal tracts, erratic precipitation, water stress, poor crop yields, and a rise in the incidence of vector-borne diseases such as malaria.

If the anticipated consequences are so dire, then one should expect those responsible for the damage caused (read developed countries) to act with appropriate urgency and seriousness of purpose to atone for it. In fact, they should have done so since June 1992 when the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The adjunct to the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, was hammered out in December 1997, setting individual targets for these countries to reduce yearly emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to a minimum of 5 per cent below their 1990 levels in the first commitment period, 2008-2012. Thirty-five industrialised countries and the members of the European Union (EU) were thus covered by mandatory cuts. Developing countries such as China, India, and Brazil were exempted, though they bore a "common but differentiated responsibility" to take steps to mitigate global warming.

An assessment of the GHG reductions made by those who were given targets to do so makes poor reading and holds out little promise of their being able to live up to expectations. According to the UNFCCC secretariat (October 31, 2006) the overall emissions of the parties with targets dropped by only 3.3 per cent from 1990 to 2004. And even this reduction was rendered possible by a 36.8 per cent decrease in the Economies in Transition (EITs), namely the countries of eastern and central Europe, which were under the socialist fold earlier. East Germany (the German Democratic Republic), after its reunification with the Federal Republic of Germany, saw the closure of its carbon dioxide-spewing lignite-fired power stations, enabling the unified Germany to record a massive fall in GHG emissions. But the EITs have seen a reversal of the trend from 2000 to 2004: during this period their emissions went up by 4.1 per cent. The U.K., aided greatly since the 1970s by North Sea gas, saw significant reductions by 1995, a good two years before Kyoto.

The original 15 members of the EU, who have to cut their collective emissions by 8 per cent by 2008-2012, recorded a poor progress of 0.9 per cent by 2004. Despite this, the EU is sanguine about achieving the target for the community as a whole by 2010. This has to be viewed against the backdrop of seven member-states — Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain — expressing their inability to meet the targets.

Outside the EU, Canada has made public its inability to meet its stipulated 6 per cent GHG reduction. Canada's emissions have risen by 29 per cent over 1990 levels. It is unwilling to pass up the prospect of its Alberta tar sands yielding oil commercially. The opposition of the biggest emitter of GHGs, the U.S., to become a party to the UNFCCC and Kyoto is well known. Australia, blessed with huge coal reserves that form the backbone of its exports, is undeterred by its forest fires to subscribe to the Convention or the Protocol.

Softening up offensive

Realising that Kyoto will end in a whimper lest the U.S. and the growing economies of China and India are brought on board to accept mandatory cuts, the chief proponents of Kyoto have begun a softening up offensive. Urgency is lent by the fact that evidence of some of the adverse effects of global warming such as longer and hotter summers, shorter autumns, warmer winters, and early arrival of spring is visible in Europe.

First, the G8 club has been inviting Brazil, Russia, India, China, and Mexico to its summit meetings to evolve G8+5 strategies to mitigate global warming. Secondly, delegates from G8+5 and the U.S. Congress met on Capitol Hill in February 2007 to discuss future climate policy. According to New Scientist, they agreed to limit global carbon dioxide emissions to "somewhere between 450 and 550 parts per million compared to the present level of 379 parts per million," in order to frame emission targets "according to historical responsibility and development needs," establish a "carbon market, linking the European emissions trading scheme with others emerging across the globe" and give "a focus on research and development, energy efficiency, and means of adapting to the unavoidable effects of climate change."

The G8 summit scheduled for June will "arrive at a blueprint of the post-Kyoto framework which would serve as the background paper for global negotiations to begin under U.N. auspices in December 2007 and to conclude by 2009."

What is in store for India? What are the options available to it to limit its GHG emissions? Should India emphasise mitigation measures, or adaptation strategies, or both? And most important, how is it to guard the growth of the Indian economy from the adverse impact of GHG reductions — which boils down to less energy generation and consumption? Such questions will confront the expert advisory committee to be set up by the Government of India on global warming. The proposal to set up such a committee was announced by the Finance Minister in his budget speech.

Baseline information on India's GHG emissions was gathered during an exercise undertaken in the mid-1990s to make an inventory of sources of emissions and their volumes, for submission to the Conference of Parties of the UNFCCC. India's predominantly coal-based power industry, its oil-intensive transportation systems, large areas under paddy cultivation, and 440-million cattle population are its principal sources.

The implications of GHG reductions on energy generation and hence on the economy can be gauged from the report of the Integrated Energy Policy Committee released by the Planning Commission in December 2005. The report said: "To deliver a sustained growth of 8 per cent through 2031, India would, in the very least, need to grow its primary energy supply by three to four times and electricity supply by five to seven times of today's consumption."

Currently, coal accounts for over 50 per cent of the country's commercial energy consumption and almost 60 per cent of its electricity generation. Even in the most optimistic scenario of maximising the development of all clean energy sources, coal will account for 42 per cent of the fuel-mix by 2031-32. Under the least optimistic projections, coal will account for 65 per cent. Carbon dioxide emissions will go up from the present one billion tonnes a year to 4.1 or 5.9 billion tonnes, depending on the fuel-mix option that may prevail then.

Can India afford binding commitments, then? The answer is an emphatic `no.' What India can do in the interests of mitigating global warming and climate change and in the interests of its energy security is to manage its energy supply and demand based on economic pricing of energy, remove wasteful subsidies, reduce transmission and distribution losses, promote mass transit and freight movement by rail in preference to road, and promote energy conservation in buildings and energy efficiency in industry and agriculture. Vigorous promotion of renewable energy sources and nuclear energy — the latter somewhat looked down upon by some members of the EU — can lend greenness to the Indian energy scene. Adaptation to climate change is an equally worthwhile end to pursue and may make more sense than mitigation. India should do what it needs to do and not what others want it to do.

(N.R. Krishnan is a former Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.)