Climate change has been on the policy agenda for over a decade. The UN Framework convention on climate change in Rio in June 1992 stated as its objective the “stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system...and that such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.” This was followed by the Kyoto Protocol, which set a target for the 36 signatory developed countries to reduce emissions by at least 5% below 1990 levels in the period 2008-2012.

Notwithstanding these public declarations, governments, business and indeed the scientific community were initially divided over the impact of greenhouse gases on the climate. The US government did not sign the protocol; business questioned the scientific evidence and developing countries argued that the burden of the adjustment process was being unfairly and disproportionately thrust on them. The underlying tenor was a general reluctance to accept that current models of economic development had fundamentally altered the ecological balance. Change to existing practices was resisted.

The divisions have narrowed. There is now a consensus that climate change warrants a worldwide and coordinated response. And many of the early sceptics have publicly affirmed their concerns. President Bush has discovered a newfound interest in renewables. His ‘State of the Union’ address called for the development of alternatives to fossil fuels and the US is now working to rival Brazil as the largest producer of ethanol.

The problem is that despite this convergence of views and clarity of intent to contain GCH across the widest range of stakeholders, the results of action so far are falling well short of targets. Tony Blair’s government has had to admit the UK won’t meet its target of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide (the most important of the greenhouse gases) by 20% by 2010.

I recently heard one of the world’s most eminent met-eorological scientists, Sir John Houghton, talk about climate change and his message was optimistic but also numbingly anxious. First, he felt the world had accepted the seriousness of the problem. Early concerns that the rise in sea levels might, for instance, swamp Bangladesh and other low lying areas or that the doubling of CO2 could increase the frequency of extreme events like floods in winter over Northern Europe by a factor of five, or that the intensity of heat waves could devastate cropping patterns, were no longer being disregarded as the exaggerated clarion calls of a minority group of scientists.

Second, he felt the worst effects of global warming could still be arrested if appropriate actions were taken. The answers to what needed to be done were known and the technological solutions existed, or where they did not, tangible progress was being made to create these.

• Despite convergence on the need to contain emissions, action was limited

• Though it’s time to set targets beyond Kyoto, there are political hurdles

• India must proactively tap clean-technology skills of many of its companies

Thus, India should stop deforestation—in fact, aggressively afforest; create more efficiencies in energy generation and move to free sources of energy (viz hydro, biomass crops, bio fuels, biomass waste, wind, solar thermal and PV electricity and geothermal). It should incentivise companies to invest in appropriate technologies and disincentivise those that persisted with inappropriate technologies (at least from a ‘green’ perspective). It should consider capping carbon emissions from particular industries like power.

Sir John’s forewarning was also clear. He cited specifics to highlight the potentially devastating consequences of doing too little, too late.

The challenge ahead is clear. It is not to secure acknowledgement of the problem, nor to create a sense of urgency or, more specifically, to secure the commitment of the scientific and business community. These have been overcome. The challenge is to create the global institutional framework required to tackle a global problem. It is to persuade individuals, corporations and some governments that the problem is not so large that they cannot make a difference. Sir John ended his talk with a quote from Edmund Burke “No one made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do so little.”

The issue of climate change cannot be ducked. Nor can governments afford to dither over what should be the new targets, post-Kyoto in 2012. Or, in other words, on who should do what and what financial and other incentives should be provided to ensure continued research on cleaner energy. The imperative, particularly for the bigger producers of greenhouse gases like US, India and China, must be to spell out explicitly the reduction targets they wish to achieve after 2012. But, one can’t wish away the political hurdles. After all, it took governments five years to negotiate the Kyoto protocol. There is, therefore, an equal imperative to focus on sector-specific measures. India should consider the following:

Energy companies should accept a renewable obligation; business should tighten its building regulations and government should create a ‘carbon trust’ to support investment in energy efficiency particularly for SMEs; car manufacturers should accept an obligation to reduce CO2 emissions from new cars; builders must be incentivised to improve energy efficiency in buildings and the agricultural sector needs a clearer strategy for non-food crops.

Today India is the sixth largest emitter of CO2 in the world. This is because we do not impose stringent enough emission norms. But at the same time, we have a large number of companies working on clean technologies and there is a growing carbon credit market in the country. Our objective should be to harness these technological skills to government policy to create sustainable solutions for industry and economic development—irrespective of what others do.

—The writer is chairman, Shell Group of Companies in India. These are his personal views