GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE (Part-II)

 

From Sampath’s Desk:

GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE (Part-II)

 

To recall the past, the Madrid conference, known as COP25, ended on 15.12.2019, two days late, after marathon negotiating sessions among almost 200 countries made halting progress in a few areas with no advancement made in one crucial area – designing the rule book to govern the global trading of carbon credits.

 

The failure to reach agreement on the trading rule book, known as Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, means that a key tool to reduce emissions will be punted to the next climate summit, COP26 in Glasgow, U.K. between November 1 and 12, 2021. The article would put a price on carbon and create a market, allowing low-emission countries to sell their credits to high-emission countries such as Canada.

 

Environmental groups and the COP25 presidency itself, led by Chile, expressed frustration that the longest-ever climate summit – 14 days – came up short. The agreements reached by parties are insufficient to tackle the crisis of climate change with urgency.

 

Environmental groups heavily criticized the lack of ambition in Madrid, where climate leadership went missing in good part due to the absence at the political level of the United States. President Donald Trump vowed to pull the country, the world’s second-biggest source of greenhouse gases, from the 2015 Paris Agreement and did not send an official delegation to Madrid. COP25 showed that the yawning gap between what citizens are demanding on climate action, and what UN negotiators are delivering, is wider than ever.

 

The appalling and alarming state of affairs as described by the report of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) was that concentration of carbon dioxide surged from 405.5 parts per million in 2017 to 407.8 ppm in 2018, and the CO2 concentration exceeding the average annual increase of 2.06 ppm during 2005-2015. What the rich and advanced nations had proposed to do was only a peanut and tip of the iceberg considering the enormity of the deteriorating situation! It was disquieting and distressing to see the inertia, passivity and sloth on the part of world countries particularly the rich and advanced bloc for a long period since the Summit that had already benefited from the massive emissions of greenhouse gases for their industrialization purposes.

  

In 2018, the Katowice (Poland) UN Climate Conference rightly stuck to earnest implementation of the historic Paris Agreement on Climate Change which was getting delayed at the instance of one country or group or groups of countries on one ruse or another, which was heartening and welcome. Needless to say, it mandated and called for the world countries to discharge their obligations to save the posterity from the ill-effects of pollution and climate change. 

          

For example, the floods in Mumbai, Uttarakhand, Assam, Chennai, Kerala, and Bengaluru that India witnessed, to mention a few, were a clear pointer of global warming slowly gaining momentum. And if we fail to do something about it sooner than later, the consequences would perhaps be more disastrous in the days ahead. If the trend continues unattended, who knows, we may even end up in a situation where we allow the paradise of Earth to be converted into a hell and may bequeath it to the posterity much to their dismay and discomfiture. 

 

Now that a serious warning has come out from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for keeping the global warming below 1.5º C, there is urgency in the matter to plunge into meaningful, effective and efficient steps towards the target by all the world countries. While India has always been ready to do its maximum towards the common to save humanity from the severe harm by way of increased global warming affecting the posterity in the decades ahead, it is time for the advanced countries headed by the U.S., NATO countries and others also to ensure their respective contributions, as they had already immensely benefited by the greenhouse gas emissions for their mass industrialization programmes for decades together.

 

It needs no over-emphasis that a concrete action plan is necessary for pollution control with the 2015 Climate Change Conference in Paris, France having aimed to keep a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius and to drive efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5º C above pre-industrial levels. The whole world community has the responsibility to bequeath to the posterity a world with bearable climatic conditions sans extremity in all weather seasons for a comfortable living on earth; lest curse should befall us.

 

The report from Greenpeace, based on NASA’s satellite data and the measurements for Aerosol Optical Depth which assessed the level of fine particulate matter (PM25) in some states in India compared very badly with China, clearly hinting that people living in India are at a greater risk for health problems due to polluted environment than China.  

 

The sickening situation is attributable to pollution from construction activity, fuel emissions from diesel vehicles, lack of low-cost technological solutions, widespread burning of biomass including stubbles, absence of cheap and clean burning stoves, lack of reliable public transport facilities, lack of keen interest in tapping solar energy in a big way, lack of research, innovation and discovery of tapping on a massive scale self-sustaining and renewable sources of energy without pollution, etc. 

Nuclear power is a clean source of power when compared to coal based thermal power except its radiation levels and hazards. It doesn't emit carbon dioxide, green house gas. The cost of power generated is competitive at present market prices and much less as compared to gas, oil and coal based thermal power. But in thermodynamic cycle, it converts only 28% of the energy into electricity and the rest 72% of heat generated in nuclear reactors is ejected into the environment. However we can't say that nuclear power is an agent for global warming and climate change.

Use of bicycles and electric vehicles is one of the excellent alternative solutions.

 

Climate change effects have been plaguing the world at least for decades now. No doubt, it is time to have a comprehensive international agreement to protect the planet. The Paris CoP-21 offerered a golden opportunity to strike an effective and meaningful one. But nothing should be forced upon the developing and under-developed countries.

 

The U.S. President Donald Trump sometime back pulling out of Paris Climate Agreement - a serious, abrupt, callous, brusque and unceremonious act - should have surprised none given his tough, recalcitrant, intransigent and belligerent stand against all the words and deeds of his predecessor Barack Obama as spelt out by him throughout his US presidential election campaign. Men may come into or go out of power, but the country’s commitments should be kept up; shouldn’t they?

 

After Trump assumed the mantle in Washington, the While House issued an official statement that Trump was weighing the arguments for and against the Paris Climate declaration and would take a call in due course. That was only a subterfuge to delay and deny things.

 

Earlier, all references to Climate Change were deleted from the White House Website. Again, the 'orange menace' occupying the White House has slapped massive cuts in funding for scientific research. This, in effect, will upset the apple-cart of US meeting its obligations under the Paris Climate Change accord. Right thinking people in general and science think tank/aficionados in particular specifically in the U.S. are opposed to the move and they have formed 'March for Science' chapters all over the world and organized at least 600 'awareness campaigns'.

 

Far from letting down the genuine cause, it is was rather intriguing that Trump was accusing India, Russia and China of having done 'nothing'. The allegation is per se false, frivolous, preposterous, untenable and unsustainable. 

 

Earlier, donning a hardhat, Trump  rolled out what he called ‘America First Energy Plan’ in a bid to untether the American fossil fuel industry, giving an honourable burial to Barack Obama’s commitments on Climate Action Plan, a legislation introduced in June 2013 which meant to serve as a ‘national plan for tackling climate change’. The key parts of the plan were divided into three sections viz. outlined plans to cut carbon pollution in the US, actions to get the country ready for the effects of climate change, and plans for how to lead international efforts to address global warming.

 

In a major policy reversal that would also have adverse ramifications on the global plans on climate change, the Trump administration is now committed to energy policies that lower costs for ‘hardworking Americans’ and 'maximize the use of American resources' freeing them from dependence on foreign oil. According to his administration, the US was, for too long, held back by burdensome regulations on its energy industry. He has now vowed to eliminate the harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S.. According to him, lifting the restrictions will greatly help American workers to get wage increase by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years.

 

Sound energy policy begins with the recognition that he U.S. has vast untapped domestic energy reserves. The Trump Administration will now embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans to take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own. The U.S. will now use the revenues from energy production to rebuild roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure. Less expensive energy will be a big boost to American agriculture as well.

 

Again, Trump didn’t suggest a replacement for any of those regulations, and went on to suggest that getting rid of them will save money and keep America secure. All these plans have been rolled out to play for the local/domestic galleries.

 

The move drew swift backlash from a coalition of 23 states and local governments as well as environmental groups, which called the decree a threat to public health and vowed to fight it in court. The order's main target is former President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan, which required states to slash carbon emissions from power plants - a key factor in the ability of U.S. to meet its commitments under a climate change accord reached by nearly 200 countries in Paris in 2015. Trump administration had a strange interpretation to make viz. such steps are taken to lift restrictions on American energy to reverse government intrusion and to cancel the job-killing regulations.

 

Energy analysts and executives have questioned whether the moves will have a big effect on American industries. Environmentalists have called them reckless. Environmental groups heaped scorn on Trump's order, arguing it was dangerous and went against the broader global trend towards cleaner energy technologies. A coalition of mostly Democrat-led states and local governments issued a statement saying they would oppose the order in court. That will also allow the US to achieve energy independence from the OPEC alliance of oil producing countries. But President Trump maintained he will continue to work with countries in the Gulf – many of which are in OPEC – to develop a positive energy relationship as part of anti-terrorism strategy.

 

The document also calls for a new focus on coal and a revival of the country's coal industry. President Trump  claimed that he would do that by backing and batting for ‘clean coal’, but it is not clear whether such a thing would actually be possible and whether what he calls as ‘clean coal’ exists at all in the present scheme of things. However, there can be no second opinion about the right of the U.S. to retain or change its energy policy, sidelining the Paris agreement. As for India, in addition to petroleum conservation we should fully exploit solar, coal and atomic sources of energy to offer power at affordable rates.

 

Trump’s course correction or diversion is a setback to global plans. While one can understand his concerns for creating job opportunities to his countrymen, he should ponder over whether it can be at the cost of international obligations undertaken by his country under the 2015-Paris Climate agreement. If the U.S. were to go ahead with the change in its recent policy stand, it would probably forfeit the international confidence. As for India, she has to work on several areas for meeting her ever-increasing power needs through clean energy sources.

 

Climate change is the wholesome effect of a fast industrializing world’s production of greenhouses gases like carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide over at least two centuries now. It is a writing on the wall which countries indiscreetly used non-renewable fuel resources including coal for centuries and got benefited to a great extent causing high air pollution levels, leaving the developing and under-developed countries lag behind.

 

China emits 24% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions while the U.S. and the European Union together emit 28%. India ranks fourth in the list with only 5%.

 

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) can’t act like an elite club of rich nations demanding their pound of flesh from the power-starved developing countries. The rich and advanced nations should understand that as far as India is concerned, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. So, India’s position has to be strengthened if the mission and vision of the Paris meet were to be successful.  

 

It needs no over-emphasis that India needs to ensure that the U.S. and China are on the same page on key issues relating to emissions and respect the pledges made. For this to happen, Indian PM has to exert diplomatic pressure on them.

 

Climate finance has been a source of some tension between donors and receiving countries. The requirement of $100 billion per year up to 2020 has been identified not just like that, but is a ‘sine qua non’ for developing countries like India to effect cuts committed by her even as she had to fulfill the domestic obligations for growth and development that entailed industrialization requiring massive resources for her clean energy needs.

 

Indian negotiators should push the U.S. on the definition of INDC (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) targets – the developing nations want the developed ones to include mitigation interventions to reduce sources, adaptation financing as well as technical assistance available whereas the U.S. wants the scope to be narrowed down to mitigation alone. The two countries could reasonably strike a balanced bargain and allow two of the three variables here, so that it is acceptable to both the developed and developing countries. Again, the influence of the Asian bloc could be leveraged to the maximum especially aligning with other initiatives such as the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank which are rivaling global institutions. These factors could propel the summit to be a place where there can be substantive dialogue and a coherent approach to ensure that the world sees a climate deal at long last.

 

Government of India has ambitious projects to crystallize - Jan Dhan Jojana and Swatch Bharat – among others. One of the crucial barometers for success on the international stage for India will be to see how it navigates the complex contours of the summit in Paris where she is a significant stakeholder.

 

The unfortunate comment of John Kerry ‘India being challenge in negotiations’ pre-supposes that India will be forced to be under bludgeon till it signed on the dotted lines.

 

The Climate Change Fund flow which is rather slow should be accelerated besides increasing the quantum commensurate with the huge commitments made by developing countries like India which are also accountable, responsible and answerable to their own populations in taking them through the long path of prosperity, at least in phases if not immediately. For the objectives to be successfully met, requisite funding is a must.

 

India was obviously skeptical about the outcome of the Paris summit given the flawed bottom-up approach of the rich nations in arbitrarily and unilaterally imposing commitment levels on developing nations which will not help clinch a robust ‘win-win’ agreement among world nations.  

 

Without doing what is required, asking the emerging economies like India to take greater responsibility in mitigating climate change is preposterous and like ‘asking for the Moon’.

  

Government of India in its capacity as the adviser, facilitator and coordinator, and the state governments which have physical jurisdiction over the activities going on, can, by working in tandem with each other, adequately contribute to carving out a ‘pollution-free world’.

 

R.SAMPATH

30/9/2020