Of Emission Cuts, Convergence and Insincerity

The public airing during Hillary Clinton's recent visit to India of the differences between Obama Administration and the Indian Government on climate change has served to highlight the continued divide between developed world and the advanced developing countries like China, Brazil and India. The exchange has also resulted in greater media attention and scrutiny of India's stance on ways of combating climate change and its opposition to binding obligations on carbon emission cuts.

Jon Anderson examines (what he calls) India's paradox of going green without any carbon limits in the Boston Environmental Policy Examiner. He explains how India is opting for more investment in green renewable sources of energy rather than emission cuts as way to tackle the menace of climate change. He argues that in light of India's burgeoning energy needs, the quest for energy security is the primary drive (and a better pitch) for the shift from carbon-based energy to renewable sources of energy. The toughest challenge however for India, he warns, would be to generate sufficient funds for investment in the cleaner but expensive renewable sources.

R. Ramachandran emphasises on the utility of the Singh Convergence Principle (Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's proposal in Heiligendamm G8 Summit 2007 that India's Per Capita Emission (PCE) shall never exceed that of industrialised countries) as a potential compromise to break the current impasse over emission cuts. He argues that countries like India and China (with significant total carbon emissions) must shoulder more responsibility on the climate change front (particularly as their citizenry will inevitably bear the ecological and economic impact of climate change). However, he feels that Singh Convergence Principle would impose meaningful restraints on carbon emission (albeit contingent on emission cuts by the developed world).

He avers:

"On the one hand, it forces developed countries to cut their emissions and, on the other, takes India on a low carbon path. It automatically constrains India’s emissions if the developed countries are serious about cutting their emissions. Thus the SCP serves to deflect fingers pointing at India for not cutting down on emissions even as it demonstrates the country’s seriousness of intent. Based as it is on per capita emissions, it also reflects the national position of equal access for all to the atmospheric commons."

Jeremy Carl, on the other hand, argues in Indian Express that a cap on the emission intensity (emission per unit of GDP) may be a more realistic target. He also expresses his optimism about the prospects of jointly funded clean energy development and joint collaboration on environmental regulation and management (measures mooted by Jairam Ramesh, the Indian Environmental Minister).

The complete lack of discussion over the Singh Convergence Principle is a telling indictment of the character of debate over emission cuts. Both sides of the divide - governments of both the developed and the developing countries have been more interested in passing off the buck rather than assume responsibility. The Convergence Principle offer a way of restraining emissions in developing countries (where binding emission cuts are simply beyond the realm of political feasibility). However, the reluctance of developed countries to accept to this modest proposal betrays their own lack of sincerity and political will on emission cuts.