Too many views, too little action

“ We cannot define when the middle-game ends and the end-game starts .” — Alexander Alekhine

Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 1992) have been at work for months now preparing a draft text of an agreement to regulate emissions of global warming gases (greenhouse gases or GHGs) from the year 2020.

The bewildering array of alternative formulations put forth by the participants for practically every clause of the agreement makes one wonder whether an agreed final draft would be available in time for adoption at in Paris in November-December this year. It looks as if 190 contestants are playing with each other simultaneously on the same chess board.

The June meeting in Bonn had before it a 90-page version drafted at its earlier meeting in Geneva (February). The basic feature of the draft was the decision taken at the 19th Conference of the Parties to the Convention in Warsaw in December 2013, that countries could fix their own targets for reduction of GHG emissions along with their chosen base year, which could be 1990 or 2005 or 2010.

The national targets and the slew of actions to achieve them are to be called ‘intended nationally determined contributions’ (INDCs). Though left to self-determination, NDCs carry a rider that the targets committed to and the actions to be taken to achieve them should be ambitious enough to tackle the problem of global warming meaningfully.

With the acceptance of the principle that nations could fix their own targets instead of accepting those thrust by an international agreement, it appeared that the work of preparing the text of the post-2020 control regime had been greatly facilitated.

But, as it turns out, the work has become complicated thanks to the urgency lent by predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its latest report that the earth is well on its way to warming up by more than 2 degrees celsius in this century. This has given rise to calls to cut down the emissions of GHGs by all countries and in the process throwing the energy development plans of a major emerging economic power like India out of gear.

Let’s examine some of the issues that plague the climate talks, not least of which are polemics and semantics. The problem begins at the beginning with the wording of the “General Objective” of the agreement, whether it is to achieve “net zero growth emissions” or simply “full, effective and substantial implementation of the Convention”.

It may be argued that achieving net zero growth goes beyond the scope of the convention and hence would be an overkill.

On the other hand, a phrase like “full, effective and substantial implementation” may be dismissed as being vague and lacking in ambition. Thus, defining the scope of the climate change convention itself is mired in a state of uncertainty even 23 years after its adoption.

Global GHG reduction targets to be set for realisation and their timeframes have been perennial issues of debate. This is reflected in the wide and wildly varying formulations put forth by the parties on the extent of cuts needed to keep the temperature rise to below 2 degress celsius or as some would like it, to below 1.5degrees.

Some favour a 40-70 per cent reduction below 2010 levels to be achieved by 2050 and near zero emissions by the end of the century; some others would like emissions to peak as early as 2020 with a reduction of 50 per cent by 2050; and there are those who prefer belligerent formulations like a 70-95 per cent reduction below 2010 levels by 2050 and negative emissions by 2080.

None of these targets would be to the liking of India which has announced an honest 20-25 per cent reduction in its energy intensity of growth below 2005 levels to be achieved by 2020, leaving future targets to be decided at the appropriate time. Loud cries that India should display greater ambition in setting its targets as China has done are being heard abroad and at home too.

Given the low per capita energy consumption of India compared to the global average and its heavy reliance on coal for power generation, it is impossible for India to effect the transformation to a low carbon economy in the foreseeable future, without ploughing in massive investments and retiring early many of the current assets.

This has been brought out effectively in the report of the group set up by the erstwhile Planning Commission on a low carbon economy for India.

An interesting point being canvassed in the climate talks is the preparation of a global emissions budget and allocation of shares to individual countries in accordance with their historical responsibility in causing global warming, their ecological footprint, capabilities and state of development.

This impractical suggestion may be music to the developing world but would be unacceptable to the developed countries, as they have categorically repudiated their historical responsibility in causing global warming.

Ever since the Bali Conference of the Parties to the Convention in 2008, provisions relating to transparency in actions to reduce GHG emissions and adaptation to the adverse impacts of climate change have been considered an essential feature of any climate agreement. In Bali, it was agreed that actions taken by countries would be “measurable, reportable and verifiable” (MRV).

In Bonn, seven optional formulations on MRV were available, reflecting the diversity of views on this subject.

Even the issue of prescribing a date for the enforcing of the agreement has seen a multiplicity of views. Some would require only a minimum number of countries to ratify the agreement for it to come into force while others would like a minimum number of ratifications plus a minimum percentage of overall reductions that would be committed to by the ratifying parties.

It is obvious the western countries have bitter memories of the Kyoto Protocol which could not come into force for nearly seven years after it was adopted in December 1997. It took off only when Russia joined in February 2005.

The Bonn meeting ended with the assembled officials handing over a contentious draft text of 85 pages to the two co-chairs to be shaped into a form agreeable to everybody. Then they took a strategic time-out to meet later in August-September. The middle-game goes on.

The writer was a secretary to the ministry of environment, forests and climate change