Over the course of last 2 decades, the world has moved through a state of denial to uncertainty to panic and acceptance on the challenge that Global Warming represents.However leadership or rather statesmanship required to steer the global imperative at an expeditious pace is still missing.
The interim U.N. meetings through this year have not yielded the desired outcomes. While most major countries, including the US, China and India, have already made a commitment (at July's Major Economies Forum in Italy) to hold global temperature increases to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.8 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100, there is no defined cohesive plan articulating the way to achieve this result and the associated goals (such as ‘achieving at least a 50 percent reduction in global emissions by 2050’ with industrialized nations slashing their greenhouse-gas pollution by 80 percent).
In order for global emissions to be reduced 50 percent by 2050, IPCC has clearly concluded that to ensure this limit, global emissions would have to peak no later than 2015, a finding that has not been acknowledged by the MEF summit and hence nowhere close to being addressed.
Meanwhile time is running out – as the world heads into the Copenhagen summit in December, most observers seem to be on the verge of losing hope. So where do we truly stand today?
Fundamental differences persist even on the way forward – some of the developed countries want to continue with the Kyoto protocol framework while others are more inclined to abandon the current framework for an entirely new treaty.
A sharp divide exists amongst the developed nations and the developing bloc on the two key issues of cutting carbon emissions and meeting the associated costs.
On emissions, while developed economies have acknowledged a historical responsibility for global warming but insist that 50% global reduction target cannot be achieved unless developing countries especially China, India and Brazil also pledge to curb output of greenhouse gases.
Other critics in the developed world argue that unless large ‘emerging and growing emitters’ like India and China are brought under the emission cap ambit, their output would continue to become more competitive in global markets thus impacting the economy at large in the regulated economies.
Most of the developed countries have also vehemently opposed any framework which requires them to accept the full burden for the costs of advancing carbon efficient technology transfers to enable the development goals in the emerging economies.
Efforts for a lasting global framework have been marred as much by these fundamental differences between various nations as also political tensions encountered on the domestic front by them. While the European Union, pegged to a 1990 benchmark, has set a 20 per cent target for emissions cuts by 2020, and Japan 25 per cent if others follow suit, the US so far has only been able to build domestic consensus for the equivalent of four per cent.
The US, which signed the Kyoto deal but later refused to ratify it owing to domestic opposition, is still working on its new climate change and energy legislation and there are fears the bill will not pass in time for the Copenhagen meet.
Many groups are concerned that Nations (both developed and developing) cannot achieve deep cuts in their emissions, or even cap emissions at current levels, without capping and cutting economic growth.
As a point in case, while it is true that the India’s per capita emissions in 2030 will still be much lower than that of any developed country today, the carbon footprint is set to grow from about 1.5 t CO2 equivalent today to about 3.5 t CO2 equivalent by 2030. This is often pointed out by critics as indicative of the clear and present danger that India (as also China, Brazil…) represents.
It is imperative that the global leadership focuses on countering the alarmist views being propagated by the naysayers. A lion’s share of this leadership burden lies on the USA and G7 – global analysts feel that under the Obama administration US is as close as it has ever been to lead the world towards a best-case climate scenario.
In the recent months, the US Govt. has earmarked significant amounts for home-weatherization programs, clean energy research and development, expansion of rail transit, and other initiatives to hasten the movement towards a low carbon future for the US.
It now needs to step up and lead the way by pursuing concrete actions in the international arena prior to Copenhagen on issues such as financing arrangements, technology cooperation, and deforestation prevention to increase the chances of success in December.
India and China have already demonstrated their willingness to engage and align their growth planning to the larger global good. Both have even offered to engage with the US through a bilateral climate agreement. A word of caution though – while in the short run, this may seem as a prudent step; it will surely lead to a setback for any significant multilateral engagement to succeed.
Post new comment