Report of 'South Asia Media Workshop on Climate Change' in New Delhi during 27-28th Aug. 09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way …”
---From 'A Tale of Two Cities'
Is climate change new?
It is no surprise to imagine that Charles Dickens may have predicted the challenge of Climate Change few centuries ago in different literary jargons distinctly isolated from the language of science. But climate change is as old as the hills, oceans and forests. Anthropogenic climate change began to leave their imprints in human memory millions years ago. But development of our comprehensive approach towards Climate Change as a concept, phenomenon and discipline of study has only materialized recently.
Climate change is not environmental negotiation only. It is also form of very competitive economic negotiations. The variant patterns and changing trends of climate change should be communicated by scientists inheriting the spirit of investigative journalist. Because it is a dynamic science. So everyone involved has a right to know about the impacts of the climate change, the processes which are very difficult to decipher and discern the true meaning of particular event by conventional benchmarks of inquiry.
To understand the processes of Climate Change, it requires a new holistic paradigm shift in our thinking. When language of threats arising out of climate change is going through the prism of real, urgent and dangerous the meaning reflected by these words have acquired definite meaning in the parlance of scientific evidence.
The current crisis of climate change is arrived not only due to production of the GHGs in recent times but also due to long lasting accumulation of the GHGs since many decades. Because of the long life of Carbon Di Oxide, Methane, Nitrus Oxide and HFCs, PFCs, SF6 the accumulated concentration of the GHGs is causing cumulative impact on the environment. The world is having very small window of opportunity as far as mitigation and adaptation is concerned. If the consensus arrived around 2 degree Celsius is to be materialized then world must stop the concentration of CO2 upto 450 ppm. Right now the world has concentration of CO2 around 430 ppm.
So there is very little room for maneuvering to compromise the interest of the world. In essence, the disturbance in the natural carbon cycle (emission and sinking and level of precipitation) is causing the driver of climate change. The upcoming risk is related to natural carbon dioxide sinks becoming weak in the future because of effects of increasing ocean acidification, ocean circulation changes. As warming amplifies, previously inert pools of carbon could release more GHGs.
Many key climate indicators are already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which contemporary society and economy have developed and thrived. Indicators include a) Global mean surface temperature, b)Sea level rise, c)Global ocean temperature, d) Arctic sea rise extent, e)Ocean acidification, f) Extreme climatic events
The rediscovery of the concept of the growth:
It is must to remember that no country in the world has ever built a low carbon economy. The whole debate of the negotiating processes is about sharing the growth by cooperation having equity and fairness. These are very much the prerequisites for the effective climate change agreement. The acceptance of two degree centigrade limit may be one of the aspects of criticism leveled towards leadership of developing countries but it is equally important to understand that Annex one counters in UNFCC framework are pushing for capping the development processes to contribute to the success of negotiations taking shape towards the commencement of Copenhagen summit.
The technical point concerned with the argument of “Need to have equal space to grow” can be explained by the Carbon budget of the world which is estimated by the experts for the period of 1850-2050. As per this budget, out of total World Carbon Budget which is around 650 Giga Tonnes of Carbon, Annex one countries have already consumed 209 GTC in advance during the course of industrialization and reindustrialization period. If we calculate the proportion of the carbon budget to be spent for the developing countries according to the population they have surpassed their share. They should get around 137 GTC which is very much less than what they have expended around 209 GTC. So in order to reverse this allocation, it requires enormous effort and level of commitment for mitigation and adaptation. This excess level of emissions crossing beyond their legitimate right based on population is largely due to their lifestyle and consumption patterns.
From Bali to Copenhagen through Poznan:
Despite evolving framework of regular conventions adopted, emphasized and debated during the recent times, there is no substantial progress made by Annex One countries (majority developed countries) towards mitigation. The share of the cumulative emissions globally has been demonstrated by consistent negation of the principle of ‘Right to Live’ inherited by the vast population (80%) of the developing and least developed countries. This population of south is consuming five times less energy than those of developed world. The figures speak for themselves: USA: 28 %, EU-25.23 %, China 9%, Japan 5%, Canada 2%, Australia 2%, India 2%, Mexico and Brazil 2%, South Korea and Indonesia 2%, Rest of the World 26% (primarily former soviet block and Africa). Significantly the share of the emissions of Annex one countries has risen in the recent time more than the figures just demonstrated for the period of 1950 to 2000.
Currently India is accounting for 2 tonnes of Carbon per capita emission compared to global average level of 4 tonnes/capita. So we are still growing at modest pace. Despite the fact that some Indian publications commented that Indian government compromised their stand at LaKila Major Economic Forum summit held in Italy recently, India has given substantial commitment to international community that “at not point during the phase of ascending economic growth we will allow to grow our emissions beyond the average emissions/capita that of developed countries.”
A 2007 review of the UNFCC found that between 1990s and 2006, while CO2 emissions of all industrialized nations declined by 1.3 per cent, this decline was primarily due to the low emissions of countries whose economies were in transition. If these nations were excluded, CO2 emissions of rich counties had actually increased by 14.5 percent. Throughout the different agreements and negotiations of 1988, 1992, 1997 responsibility was clearly identified for the Annex one countries for the concerned emission cuts. But they were consistently pushing for OFFSET mitigation mechanisms.
The whole politics of the emissions currently is concentrated around the arguments to decide the base line for the starting of the emission level reduction. Therefore developed countries are playing new game of introducing enhanced emission reduction targets by increasing the base line year beyond 2000. For instance, USA wants to commit itself for 20 % emission cuts unto 2020 having base line 2005, EU is pushing for 20-30% on 1990 level, Japan 7 % on 1990, Australia for 5-15 etc. Rich countries are accounting for seven of every ten tonnes of CO2 since the start of industrial era.
The fact is that the increasing the base line and increasing the percentage of emission reduction targets will compel us to forget the cumulative increase of the emissions and their reflections in the cumulative increase in the proportion of the total emissions. So even the modest target for the Annex one countries is set to reduce 40 % of the total emissions around the 1990 level to be achieved by 2020, this is very less than what is required to stall the march of impending crisis. This is to be remembered that target has be achieved without any room of OFFSETs by Annex one countries by investing in developing countries. Currently whatever percentage of emission reduction developed world has achieved the primary and major share has been of OFFSETs in terms of CDMs and other bypasses. Of the total emission reductions, EU is gaining 66 % and USA is earning 75% emissions from the OFFSETs. This is against the principle of the UNFCC. There is no domestically enhanced, substantial effort in the Annex one countries which proves the seriousness of those countries in achieving the relevant and practically achievable targets set for emission reduction.
Upto August 2009, there were total 4200 CDM projects which were in pipeline. Out of these, 1774 were registered projects. Out of total projects, 73% are being run in Asia Pacific region. The deals of CDM projects are very secretive and public access to information to these agreements is not satisfactory. The OFFSETTing pattern shows that there is no real effort to invest in the clean energy. CDM transaction volumes have been small and falling by 30 %. But contrary to these reports of decline in the prospects of CDM, the market for Carbon driven applications in industries and other technologies increased by US $ 126 billion. This is primarily due to Spot shares and futures trading. The mushrooming of the start ups related to new renewable are suffocating due to lack of capital and also due to the recent financial crisis, which is here to stay in coming months. World has witnessed that due to recent ambitious start ups in bio-diesel, huge population of the developing world has experienced shock of extreme food crisis.
Energy:
The options in front of developing countries to increase their preparedness for the challenge of mitigation involve moving towards renewable, adopting standard practices of Energy Efficiency and moving towards modern technologies of mitigation (expensive Integrated Classification Combustion Cycle, Carbon Sequestration and Deposition Techniques). The tools of CLF remain competitive but the capital cost for these still remain high. Dealing with all these problems of access to technology, complexities of technology transfer and criticalities of IPR regime it has to be emphasized again and again that Climate Change is not linear science.
When 39 % of India`s primary energy is coming from the chullahs burning the biomass(black carbon) and when renewable now accounting to only one % of the total energy generation there is fierce initiative from the Annex one countries to divert the debate towards the “damage” done by the carbon emitted by biomass combustion in the developing countries where nearly two third of the population is still bereft of any commercialized energy resources which potentially lead to less carbon emissions. To date, 78 % of world`s primary energy comes from the burning of biomass. Question is whether do poors of the world really contribute to the climate change? Answer is confident NO!
The majority of the developing countries are in the process of building their energy, transport and infrastructure. In the energy sector transportation has been one of the biggest contributor jumping by 18 % of the total emissisons, There is no energy transformation archived in developed countries as yet. Still India and China along with other non-Annex countries can invest in leapfrog technologies which are efficient, green and affordable. India`s Total Primary Energy Supply/capita is 0.5 while that of OECD is 4.7 and China 1.4. The electricity consumption of India is 503 units per capita while that of OECD us 8381 and China amounting to 2040 units per capita.
In the region every country is blessed with internal and external security problems, constant conflicts leading towards loss of life and habitat, pervasion of chronic issues of huger, poverty, lack of basic health facilities marred by void of education and human rights, the climate change is emerging as an issue of concern to all members of diverse societies, cultures, citizenships loaded with narrow differences and also having lot of similarities to share due to the common ecology shared by the physical borders of those societies and countries.
Challenges:
The number of glaciers on the part of Indian Himalayan ranges increased due to fragmentation. Larger glaciers have become lesss in number and smaller ones have increased. Glaciers at lower attitudes are retreating faster. Rivers are carrying more water from glaciers in winter and in some cases the glacial melt in summer has decreased.
New ambitious mechanism of diffusion of technology must be developed in order to facilitate the developing countries for strengthening their hands in mitigating the damage being done by climate change. This mere access of technology will not solve the problem of the enhancing the mitigation efforts. There is urgent need to develop capacity building institutions in the developing countries, improved financial mechanisms, and whole set of development initiatives to improve the adaptable techniques to incorporate the modern technologies. The question of IPRs is daunting one. There is much discussion about the accelerated technology transfer. We need to know about what exactly accelerated means?
According to one of the reports prepared by the International Consultancy, it is predicted that the world is having 70 % of it`s technologies to achieve 40 % upto the emission redcution level. All the efforts taken in this direction must be pragmatic i.e. measurable, reportable and verifiable. Achieving the harmony in the developement and adaptation is the big task and this can be countered by embedding their climate change strategies in the sustainable developmental processes.
There are much more complex challenges of urgent priorities and commitments. Effective financing and resource delivery is one of the big tasks lying ahead. During the generation of the resources the aspects of adequacy and scale will play important role apart from criteria of additional cost benefit and public entitlement. In all the priorities of the demand, supply and delivery the key features standing out are: adequacy, predictability, automatically, degree of levy on transactions. Rational for enhanced financial flows are evolved from adaptation cost studies by developing more and more information.
Additionality measures include climate proofing, mangrove covers, early warning systems, crop insurance schemes, tracking and preventing the spread of communicable diseases etc.. There is increasing thinking about normal development approaches to be practiced as the adaptation strategy. So there is inherent challenge to address the paradox between development initiatives and adaptation strategies. Some of the additionalities which may form the part of development processes are Risk management, constant dissemination of information, building excellent research capabilities, capacity building, concrete measures of co-financing, financing multilateral interventions etc. Delivery management is also important part of these processes where role of government, different institutions, marketing and supply institutions.
Merit Good !
We have been consistently experiencing that market cannot deliver the merit good. But it does not mean that market does not have potential to provide that. But in the game of Climate Change negotiations apart from Civil Society, Markets have definitely emerged as a decisive factor influencing the process of bargaining. Let us wait for the Copenhagen to imprint its historical significance by expressing the obligation towards Common but differentiated responsibilities. We need action for the words spoken by world and already advocated throughout the treaties in terms of letter and spirit.
Considering the fact that Kyoto Protocol was a pledge and review agreement; eventhough Kyoto Protocol came into force in 2005, the rules for a penalty for non-compliance or failure to meet targets were never conclusively negotiated. Next, Bali action plan was based on four main pillars of mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology. It is important that a agreement is reached concerning all these pillars. Consensus on these pillars will determine the extent of success to be realised in the agreement of Copenhegan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
