Five months have passed since the spectacular failure of the Copenhagen climate meet last December. The much-hyped event promised a lot but delivered little, other than showing to the entire world how far apart North and South were and that years of negotiations had failed to bridge this gap. Instead of a legally binding global agreement to decisively tackle climate change, all that emerged was a last-minute non-binding statement by major emitters of heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs), namely, the US, EU and the four BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China).
The so-called Copenhagen Accord's ad hoc nature is underscored by the manner it was cobbled together at the hectoring of President Barack Obama in the dying hours of the meeting. Perhaps the most surreal moment of the entire 15 hours Obama spent in Copenhagen on December 18 was when he burst into the room where the four BASIC leaders were in a huddle. An hour later, with the accord drafted, he accosted another roomful of leaders from the EU, Australia and Canada and made them agree to it. The accord is at best a statement of intent and at worst a dangerous distraction, even a threat to global negotiations under UN auspices.
Politics notwithstanding, the world cannot wait for a deal on climate change. The cost of inaction and the harm caused by climate change will affect poor countries disproportionately. The time for them to act is now. With its growing economic clout and international stature, India is uniquely positioned to take the lead and break the stalemate with an out-of-the-box proposal. It can do this without sacrificing its goals of sustainable development and of eliminating energy poverty (56 per cent of rural Indian households lack access to electricity). It can also do this without abandoning its long-held and legitimate position of equity in per capita emissions.
The point often missed in terming China and India big emitters is that global warming is not caused by current emissions of GHGs but by their accumulated stock in the atmosphere. Once released, these gases can stay in the atmosphere for up to 100 years. A tonne of CO2 emitted by industrial revolution-era Britain in the late 1800s is almost as bad as a tonne of CO2 emitted by China or India today. So, EU with 16 per cent of current emissions accounts for nearly 27 per cent of cumulative emissions, ranking second only to the US. For the UK, an early industrialiser, the difference is even more pronounced: its historic share is nearly three times its current share. Conversely, the historic share for many developing countries is sharply below their current share of global emissions. China's and India's cumulative shares (7.6 per cent and 2.2 per cent, respectively, since 1850) are only half their current shares.
India needs to couple its stance on equity with the market-based approaches western economies so vigorously proselytise. Global emissions trading whereby each person on the planet would have an equal quota/entitlement to emit GHGs offers a win-win opportunity. While this means India would take on a cap or ceiling on its total emissions, it would be non-binding since its current emissions are well below what it would get on the basis of a per capita allocation (especially one that also took into account historic contributions). For carbon dioxide alone, while an average American emits 20 tonnes each year, an average Indian emits only 1.1 tonnes and the world average is about 7 tonnes. Cutting the latter amount by half and setting the 'safe' limit at about 3-4 tonnes of CO2 per person would still give India a comfortable buffer.
This proposal is also consistent with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's June 2007 statement at the G8+5 summit in Heiligendamm, Germany, that India's per capita GHG emissions would never exceed those of developed countries even while pursuing policies of development and economic growth. What this means is that India is willing to negotiate on the basis of equal per capita emissions. The advantages to it of putting this radical proposal on the table cannot be overstated. This paradigm shift would eschew the current incrementalist and bargaining-based approach in favour of a transparent market-based approach. At one stroke it would turn the tables and also unlock the vast resource transfers required to address climate change and without these being treated as handouts or 'aid'.
The most transparent and objective way resource transfer can occur is through the creation of a global carbon market and the assetisation of the global atmospheric commons coupled with an equitable distribution of these assets. Any country wanting higher per capita levels than the safe limit would have to buy this right. This is how markets work: property rights are traded at a prevailing price and in that exchange is implicit a transfer of money (which in India's case could be used to finance clean and renewable energy without depending on the patronage of aid or having to deal with donor fatigue and sermonising).
On global warming it seems rich market economies, especially the US, are not willing to let markets work their magic since this would imply huge wealth transfers. But this is what India must demand and no less.
