Climate change may be an overwhelming global concern but representatives from 192 countries could not reach a consensus on how to tackle it. The recently concluded summit witnessed multiple alliances and breakups. Working beyond the stipulated time, the US-led group of five nations including China, India, Brazil and South Africa tabled a last minute proposal to limit temperature rises to less than two degrees celsius. US President Barack Obama hailed the agreement as “meaningful” only to be rejected by developing nations.

Addressing the crucial final day of the summit, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told a galaxy of world leaders who had gathered to seal a climate deal in the Danish capital, “We can do even more if a supporting global climate regime is in place.”

The path ahead does not seem easy for anyone. Climate change remains a threat for developed and developing countries alike. None of the developing countries have enough resources to invest in climate friendly technology.

Copenhagen was a huge opportunity for India to take the lead on the world stage. Time and again, it has been labeled a deal-breaker with an obstinate negotiating stance. Interestingly, this rigid stand has been for India’s own good. The recent announcement in Parliament by Environment and Forest Minister Jairam Ramesh agreeing to a drastic cut (20-25 per cent) in carbon intensity would be apocalyptic for India’s well being. It amounts to taking upon ourselves the task of redefining the adage “Polluter must pay” to “Polluter must get away”.

Carbon cuts seem to be the sole mantra of the elite world capitals. Around the world, countries have been involved in a one-of-its-kind rat race with comments and commitments about emission cuts or reduction in emission intensity as their claim to fame. Ahead of the submit, RK Pachauri, Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Director General, Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI) said “this is negotiation season”.

If India has resisted legally binding emission cuts it is for good reason. “Agreeing to a specific percentage in emission cuts will prove to be a poor strategy for India. The developed countries would donate a few millions and get away with what they have done. What is important is that they agree to emission cuts as a matter of principle,” Murli Manohar Joshi, senior leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party and part of the Indian delegation at Copenhagen said.

India need not succumb to offering unilateral concessions without obtaining any reciprocity. For this reason the operative part of the Indian delegation as voiced by the Prime Minister himself was to respect the right to development for its people keeping the per capita principle as the base. Eventually, for India, the tussle was to succeed in getting an agreement for funding and technology transfer for nationally appropriate mitigation action to counter climate change.

The 192 countries coming together at the Danish capital needed to know that the poor in India are already victims of climate change. It is common knowledge in India today that our monsoons are getting erratic and less predictable. Monsoons are the sole driving force of the agriculture-based economy. When it rains it pours, destroying crops, followed by months of water scarcity. The Indian Government needs to put its act together for a blue print of a bypass that is moral, politically feasible and economically responsible for a vast nation like ours with various climate zones.

Speaking to The Pioneer, member of the Indian delegation at Copenhagen, Chandrashekhar Dasgupta says, “Legally binding emission cuts with population as a determining key factor is not for India. It is like saying that India should stop consuming calories because it has a huge population. The negotiations at the summit have to honour the per capita principle that each inhabitant of this planet is entitled to.”

The United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCC) adopted in 1992 was formulated to stabilise the green house gases (GHG). The buildup of GHG emissions was due to the developed countries and it is their historical responsibility to cut down on the emissions. The Kyoto Protocol (KP) is the first legally binding commitment that makes developed countries adhere to 5.2 per cent cut in GHG emissions at the global level.

When the KP was adopted in 1997 the US was not party to it. The protocol prescribed a reduction in the level of green house gases to 5.2 per cent lower than the 1990 level between 2008 and 2012. Copenhagen was to decide a future course of action after the KP expires in 2012 for continuity of the process of cutting GHGs and honour the commitment made by 154 countries in the UNFCC. The decision needs to be taken in 2009 so that there is no hiatus between the two commitment periods.

Even before the summit commenced scientists were apprehensive that negotiations to cut carbon will yield desired results. “We expected surprises in this highly politicised meeting,” avers a scientist at TERI.

Jairam Ramesh emphasised at the summit that India will strive for voluntary emission reduction and monitoring it. The two options available with the Government is to promote energy intensive technology or to increase the efficiency of the existing technology.

International pressure has acted as a wakeup call for the Government to alternate forms of energy generation. “State governments are promoting geo-thermal power plants and wind power as a source of renewable energy. But it is done in fits and starts without any comprehensive plan to tackle climate change,” Suruchi Bhadwal, Fellow with the Centre for Global Environment Research said.

From a climate impact perspective the government’s position is short sighted and dangerously complacent. The global climate does not distinguish between borders. Despite having had an Indian head of the IPCC the debate in India has been inaudible confined to an inner circle of officials NGOs and academics. The focus has been on international climate change negotiations not on the impacts and responsibilities of us as a nation.

There is growing evidence that another set of policies that is research and development into climate engineering and low carbon energy alternatives will salvage an emerging economy like ours in a sustainable model. Unfortunately the political leadership is again going to harp on an approach which has failed again and again.

Environmental concerns certainly exist for India and Conference of parties (COP) is a negotiation - the often quoted stand of the Indian government is that India is a large country not equipped for legally binding emission cuts. The environment ministry has also not shown an eagerness for modelling and monitoring of domestic action plan under the surveillance of an international regime.

The government has encouraged environment friendly technology but not for dealing with the climate change purposes per se. Most recently the government announced several schemes aimed at turning energy conservation into a mass movement (for example the National Mission for Enhanced Energy Efficiency launched by the Ministry of Power).

The global climate does not distinguish between borders. Countries that fear extinction are lobbying hard to avert the disaster. So, if Maldives dives into the sea for a cabinet meeting to prove their point on urgency to deal with climate change, Nepal’s cabinet scales the Everest!

The debate at Copenhagen was distorted and lackadaisical since the beginning. Representatives from developed countries faltered by putting India and China in the same bracket with population as the only commonality. A look at the environmental data since Industrial Revolution (1731) reveals that China’s share has been 7.6 per cent and India has emitted 2.2 per cent of the total carbon dioxide (CO2) in the past two centuries. Today China emits 4.5 tonnes of CO2 per person as compared to India’s 1.2 tonnes of CO2 per person.

The annual emission (percentage of total) for China is five times that of India. China outscores with 21 percent and India a mere 4.7 per cent according to EIA, US. Both the countries cannot be measured with the same yardstick. Even if China cuts 25 per cent emission it will still have a threshold comfort for further growth and development whereas India will plunge below the sustenance level and find it difficult to sustain the health of the economy.

Is China going out of its growth trajectory to ensure emission intensity reduction? Not really say experts but that is precisely why James Hansen had wished that Copenhagen fails. The sense of urgency is lost if the Danish government proposes a draft before the summit and soon after China too quickly puts an alternate text, wins accolades for its positive process to tackle climate change, getting support from BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) and contests the proposal of the host country.

The Danish proposal counts out the distinction between developed and the developing nations negates the concept of historical responsibility and eliminates internationally binding targets by replacing it with a voluntary action pledge based on domestic legislation. This will put an end to the KP and the principles enshrined in the UNFCC. This is the fallout of the host country Denmark’s inability to check the emissions as promised which are continuously on the rise. There lies the key to success at the negotiation table: to each his own principle. Where does that lead us? A political deadlock!

This step increased the pressure on the Indian side as the international community is bound to view it as a roadblock. Chinese industries are required to improve their energy intensity by 20 per cent by 2010. The Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions Plan (NAMAS) states that China has already installed more wind capacity than any other nation with a goal of 10 per cent of electric capacity from renewable resources by 2010.

Staring at a bleak future the COP needs to realize that the problem is less scientific, and more political and bureaucratic at the international level. The present mental block linking mitigation with development is not likely to help in getting a breakthrough at the summit. Furthermore all countries should pay attention to the likelihood of getting locked into unsustainable technologies and patterns of development that will make it harder to reduce emissions later.

In the era where co-benefits approach is well appreciated, undertaking the low carbon pathway would help us achieve multiple objectives. Energy efficiency could help us get rid of blackouts, decentralized renewable energy solutions could mean electricity access for all, and this would mean creation of new business and job opportunities, thus ensuring achievement of the twin targets of development and environmental sustainability.

Voices are already being raised within the country to emphasize the advantages of adopting a low carbon pathway- more jobs, better public health, electricity access to millions, and, the recognition of being a green global power on the world map! More than 80 per cent of India’s infrastructure is yet to be built, only 10 people per 1000 own a car yet, and there are hundreds and thousands of villages that do not have access to electricity yet.

Since 2007 when the Bali Action Plan was adopted at COP 13, there have been many interesting twists and turns in the field of climate policy and diplomacy. Throughout the 2 year period since Bali, India has either been out of the picture or been in there for all the wrong reasons.

We don’t seem to realize that regardless of who did what in which continent and which year; human beings are going to bear the brunt of climate change on a massive scale. We choose to overlook this, and continue to harp about equity, common but differentiated responsibility and offsets. It might be stating the obvious, but we love our energy-guzzling cars and the big carbon-intensive skyscrapers- rather unhealthy indicators of development.

Despite being the fourth largest green house gas (GHG) emitter in the world, India has low and declining energy intensity (a recent analysis by Prayas Energy Groups confirms this) and the good news is that in the years to come, energy as well as carbon intensity is expected to decrease. It is interesting to note that despite underachievement of targets set for coal power generation, India has consistently over-achieved its renewable targets.

Though dependent on coal, India is on a low carbon growth path due to low and declining energy intensity. With development, agriculture’s share of economic activity has been substituted by growth in industry and services. Industry has an energy intensity that is about ten fold that of agriculture while services have an intensity that is about a third of agriculture. Explosive growth in services at a rate well above industrial growth has led to decerease in energy intensity and low carbon footprint for the country.

Some of the key drivers for lowering energy intensity are high industrial energy prices promoting parsimony and inherently low carbon lifestyle patterns such as vegetarianism (an average Indian consumes one-eleventh of the meat eaten by an average Chinese and one-twenty fifth of that eaten by an average American), high use of non motorised modes and public transportation.

Government policies offer mixed support for these trends for example with promising initiatives in demand reduction and renewable energy growth on the one hand but continued neglect of persistent inefficiencies in electricity supply on the other.

Recently, however, India has pulled its act together, and made some right noises. The announcement of National Action Plan on Climate Change in June 2008 was seen as a notable development from the Indian government, and was seen by some as the first key step towards a coherent strategy for low carbon pathway for the Indian economy. Jairam Ramesh’s recent announcement about making low carbon pathway the focal point of the twelfth five year plan and aiming for 20-25 percent reduction in carbon intensity by 2020 raises hope about the seriousness with which the government is considering action on climate change though belatedly.

Time is running out, and our survival depends on how quickly we embrace new ideas and implement them. To succeed climate change must be reframed not as an agenda of fear and entitlement but of growth and opportunity. Addressing it is the best means for a country like India to secure peace, development and a better quality of life. Mexico 2010 maybe too late for us to contain and control the damage.

Consider this...

How much does it take to reverse the poverty trend without an adverse impact on the climate? Not much! Providing the poor with minimum energy services requires less than one ton of carbondioxide per person. This includes eletricity for lighting, charging batteries, fans for air cooling, watching TV, cooking with gas and driving a motorised vehicle. The emissions required to provide these services to the entire world’s poor of 1.4 billion are equivalent to only a quarter or a third of the American or EU current annual CO2 emissions respectively.

The energy capacity required to provide India's 450 million poor with the basic electricity services is less than eight per cent of the US electric supply.

-- Source: An Overview of Indian Energy Trends: Low Carbon Growth and Development Challenges,Prayas Energy Group