India’s Climate Diplomacy
20 Nov, 2009 · 3007
Sanjeev Pillay evaluates the challenges for consensus building at Copenhagen
The forthcoming Copenhagen summit on climate change could be a defining moment in India’s foreign policy. The UN conference at the Danish capital is set to replace the Kyoto Protocol with a new climate regime. India, along with China and other developing countries, has a major stake in ensuring that this framework meets the principles of sustainable development and minimizes the effects of climate change. Interestingly, this contentious issue has led to unexpected bonhomie between China and India, bringing them together in criticizing Western attempts to impose heavy Greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction rates. The Indian and Chinese governments are working to produce a jointly deliberated alternative climate treaty. Despite a complex relationship marked by a degree of suspicion, both countries are committed to pave the way for an equitable regime wherein the industrialized West shall pay for its past emission record. GDP growth being closely linked with the level of GHG emissions, both India and China have rejected demands to set emission reduction targets. Both countries have reiterated that Western economies make a 40 per cent reduction in their emissions from the 1990 levels by 2020 instead of putting the burden of responsibility upon developing nations.
On the other hand, India’s differences with the United States have increased on this issue. The empty promises of the US to play a constructive role in the climate talks have frustrated the attempts of the Manmohan Singh government to bargain for substantial emissions cuts in Western economies. India expects the US to lead the initiative in cutting its emission rates which is the highest in the world. The leaders of both, the US and India, are expected to broach the issue when they meet in mid November and seek common areas to work together towards building an acceptable framework. Manmohan Singh is likely to advocate the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities' and urge the Obama administration to take a committed stand on large-scale emissions cuts. Joint ventures in renewable energy is another area both leaders are expected to discuss to reduce carbon emissions.
India has also demanded that developed nations cut down on life-style emissions. Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister argued India that India had aright to development as provided in the Rio Declaration. Moreover, “the carbon footprint of an Indian is far lower than that of an American or a European.” India claims its rate of emissions would not cross 2.5 tons a year by 2020 even if it maintained 8.5 per cent GDP growth. By 2030, its emissions rate would touch an estimated 3.5 tons of CO2. At any point in time, India’s per-capita emissions would remain below those of developed countries. India’s carbon and energy use per unit of GDP is below that of China and the US. The United States Congress proposes to reduce emissions by 17-20 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020 through the domestic climate change bill. Such a paltry reduction is unacceptable from the world’s highest polluter. The recalcitrant position of the US towards substantial emissions reduction was the reason behind the breakdown of negotiations at the Barcelona conference in early November 2009. Regarded as a precursor to the final round of talks in Copenhagen, the bitter wrangling over basic issues and the failure to reach a compromise does not bode well for a comprehensive all party framework in December.
Another contentious issue involves the transfer of clean technology and foreign investment in developing countries by the West. The Bali Action Plan (2007) had underlined the principle that countries whose process of development is retarded due to a cut in emissions should be compensated it. Thus far, the West has been non-committal on the transfer of green technology and has prioritized the acceptance of emissions targets by emerging economies. In the joint effort by China and India to negotiate terms, both have agreed to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol as the basis of the new treaty at Copenhagen. There are differences between the two nations regarding the obligations of Western countries. China is keen on the access to green technology rather than funds while India have a large potential for renewable energy prefers large-scale investment.
COP15 is unlikely to witness a comprehensive protocol due to the lack of global consensus on shared responsibilities. The failure to arrive on an agreement would mean a void after the eventual termination of the Kyoto Protocol. World leaders have to understand climate change is an immediate concern. India has to work closely with the US to develop a consensus at Copenhagen between rich and poor nations. On the other hand, India and China are likely to lobby strongly for a climate regime based on “equating GHG emissions across nations on a per-capita basis…for a long term arrangement.” The joint Sino-Indian commitment in the tussle against the developed West demonstrates India’s mature diplomatic measures in bridging differences with an unpredictable neighbor.
On the other hand, India’s differences with the United States have increased on this issue. The empty promises of the US to play a constructive role in the climate talks have frustrated the attempts of the Manmohan Singh government to bargain for substantial emissions cuts in Western economies. India expects the US to lead the initiative in cutting its emission rates which is the highest in the world. The leaders of both, the US and India, are expected to broach the issue when they meet in mid November and seek common areas to work together towards building an acceptable framework. Manmohan Singh is likely to advocate the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities' and urge the Obama administration to take a committed stand on large-scale emissions cuts. Joint ventures in renewable energy is another area both leaders are expected to discuss to reduce carbon emissions.
India has also demanded that developed nations cut down on life-style emissions. Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister argued India that India had aright to development as provided in the Rio Declaration. Moreover, “the carbon footprint of an Indian is far lower than that of an American or a European.” India claims its rate of emissions would not cross 2.5 tons a year by 2020 even if it maintained 8.5 per cent GDP growth. By 2030, its emissions rate would touch an estimated 3.5 tons of CO2. At any point in time, India’s per-capita emissions would remain below those of developed countries. India’s carbon and energy use per unit of GDP is below that of China and the US. The United States Congress proposes to reduce emissions by 17-20 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020 through the domestic climate change bill. Such a paltry reduction is unacceptable from the world’s highest polluter. The recalcitrant position of the US towards substantial emissions reduction was the reason behind the breakdown of negotiations at the Barcelona conference in early November 2009. Regarded as a precursor to the final round of talks in Copenhagen, the bitter wrangling over basic issues and the failure to reach a compromise does not bode well for a comprehensive all party framework in December.
Another contentious issue involves the transfer of clean technology and foreign investment in developing countries by the West. The Bali Action Plan (2007) had underlined the principle that countries whose process of development is retarded due to a cut in emissions should be compensated it. Thus far, the West has been non-committal on the transfer of green technology and has prioritized the acceptance of emissions targets by emerging economies. In the joint effort by China and India to negotiate terms, both have agreed to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol as the basis of the new treaty at Copenhagen. There are differences between the two nations regarding the obligations of Western countries. China is keen on the access to green technology rather than funds while India have a large potential for renewable energy prefers large-scale investment.
COP15 is unlikely to witness a comprehensive protocol due to the lack of global consensus on shared responsibilities. The failure to arrive on an agreement would mean a void after the eventual termination of the Kyoto Protocol. World leaders have to understand climate change is an immediate concern. India has to work closely with the US to develop a consensus at Copenhagen between rich and poor nations. On the other hand, India and China are likely to lobby strongly for a climate regime based on “equating GHG emissions across nations on a per-capita basis…for a long term arrangement.” The joint Sino-Indian commitment in the tussle against the developed West demonstrates India’s mature diplomatic measures in bridging differences with an unpredictable neighbor.
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
