The single most important parameter to decide the success of the UN climate change conference in Paris would be if the world leaders can put together a mechanism to hold global warming at 1.5°C. Every single point above that would be a compromise with two degrees being the so-called outer limit.
Traction has grown among the countries to find a way to cap the rise of global temperature at 1.5°C by the turn of this century, instead of the earlier target of 2°C. The EU has supported this best-possible scenario along with the key proponents, Association of Small Island States, saying it does not want to close the door to 1.5°C goal.
The US has also said the Paris pact not only needs to keep climate change below 2°C but also as low as possible. However, it has refrained from a point blank reference to 1.5°C.
While India and China have accepted the 1.5°C goal in concept, they want it to be seen in the context of how countries would achieve it — the need of differentiation (developed countries own the historical responsibility) and a carbon budget.
India has said it is ready for the ambitious target as long as the Paris pact provides equitable distribution of carbon budget. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had referred to this requirement as ‘climate justice’. India’s environment minister Prakash Javadekar also said carbon space of the developing countries must be protected if the 1.5°C target is to be imposed.
In 2009, the world had agreed that global temperature rise should be kept below 2°C. It was a political decision based on the UN scientific panel reports. The temperature goal can be translated into quantifying how much carbon dioxide emissions the atmosphere can accumulate before the temperature reaches the tipping point – referred to as the total carbon budget. Science allows the world to know which country has cornered how much of this total carbon budget. Thus, lowering the temperature goal reduces the total carbon budget of the planet.
India has long argued that the total carbon budget should be apportioned to countries on the principle of equity and developed countries should vacate the excess they occupy by drastically slashing future emissions. This space should be given to the developing countries to grow economically.
The application of a carbon budget and differentiation between developed countries (with historical responsibilities) and developing countries (whose emissions will rise) becomes all the more important from India’s perspective when the total carbon budget shrinks as a consequence of lowering the temperature cap limit.
But the US and the EU continue to loath the idea of a carbon budget as it would necessarily have to account for historical emissions for which they will have to bear the cost.
“A 1.5C target today is close to being unfeasible; or even if technically feasible; is likely to be very expensive,” said Anand Patwardhan a senior scientist and lead author of UN scientific panel reports that many countries quote to demand the goal.
“Because a 1.5C target reduces the remaining carbon budget further, it essentially means that if we continue at current emission levels; we will simply have to turn-off all our fossil fuel emissions in a few years. The carbon budget makes crystal clear the significance of common but differentiated responsibilities and historical responsibility,” he added.
But most developed countries, including the US and the EU, continue to oppose carbon budget and common but differentiated responsibilities.
