By Joydeep Gupta, IANS
Bali : A senior member of a global NGO described the Indian position at the ongoing UN climate change conference as a “deal-breaker” here Thursday as members of the Indian government delegation fought back accusing the North of trying to weasel out of its legal commitments and to keep “developing countries in a state of perpetual poverty”.
As the Dec 3-14 climate change summit entered its fourth day, Alden Meyer, strategy and policy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), told IANS: “India has been taking a hard-line position, saying it will not commit itself to any voluntary action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) – which leads to global warming – till the industrialised countries fulfil their conditions under the Kyoto Protocol” that was negotiated in 1997 and has legally binding commitments from industrialised countries to cap GHG emissions.
Meyer described this position taken by India as a “deal-breaker” because the industrialised countries – mainly the US, Canada and Japan – have been insisting at the Bali summit that fast-developing countries such as India, China, Brazil and South Africa commit themselves to at least take voluntary measures to reduce GHG emissions if the North was to commit itself to stricter GHG emissions caps post Kyoto.
The Kyoto Protocol runs out in 2012, and the major purpose of the Bali summit is to produce a roadmap for negotiations over the next two years for a post-2012 world.
“But India has said here that the AWG (ad-hoc working group of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change looking at implementation of the Kyoto Protocol) should complete its work,” Meyer said.
“Then maybe India will see what it should do.
“But that will not work. We have to proceed on parallel lines. China, Brazil and South Africa have said that if the North does its part, the South will take on additional responsibilities, though they will not be legally binding. That is the only way out.”
Reacting to this charge, a senior member of the Indian government delegation who did not wish to be identified told IANS: “The North is mandated to fulfil Kyoto commitments, which it has not done. Now the industrialised countries are trying to link their legally binding commitments to the voluntary process of developing countries (to reduce GHG emissions) though it was agreed in 2005 that these would not be linked in any new negotiation.
“The very fact that the North is now asking for a link between legally binding and voluntary processes is wrong. That is the point India is trying to raise here.
“The insistence on raising the linkage is a formula for maintaining economic status quo and keeping developing countries in a state of perpetual poverty,” the government delegate added.
UCS is a part of Climate Action Network (CAN), which has most of the world’s leading environmental NGOs among its 400-plus members.
Indian members of CAN reacted to Meyer’s charge and the counter-charge by the Indian government.
Raman Mehta of ActionAid India said: “The position of the Indian government is logical and understandable. However, simply blocking any movement forward is not practical.
“What India ought to be doing is laying down conditions for access to clean technology and finance. They must insist that industrialised countries make firm and mandatory commitments on that,” as China has done.
Shruti Shukla of World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) India said: “There’s a serious lack of confidence between developed and developing countries. There needs to be a series of meaningful confidence building measures undertaken by industrialised countries” before developing countries could be expected to do their part.
Srinivas Krishnaswamy of Greenpeace India said: “With 800 million poor people, India must look for a Kyoto-plus regime which will ensure (global) temperature rise is kept as far below two degrees Celsius as possible.
“While pushing industrialised countries for deeper commitments, India and other fast-developing countries should do their bit. The best way to possibly start is to take on national sectoral emission targets.”
Greenhouse gas emission targets and reductions are such a contentious issue because the main source of GHG emissions is industry and transport, with power generation playing a major role. Developing countries have argued that the North must cut its emissions and help the South to adapt to climate change because industrialised countries have emitted almost all the GHG in the atmosphere now.
Per capita emissions of GHG in the US and Canada are over 20 tonnes of carbon dioxide (the main greenhouse gas) per year. It is about 16 tonnes per year in European Union countries, about four tonnes a year in China and less than a tonne a year in India.
The developing countries say they must not be asked to cap their GHG emissions because then they could not set up factories or power generating stations or improve their transport networks, which are essential for development.
Industrialised countries say while they will cap and cut their GHG emissions, the emissions from fast-developing countries such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa will nullify their effort.
That is why industrialised countries have been pushing for developing countries to take on at least voluntary GHG emission cap targets – a position being led at the summit here by the US, Canada and Japan, with the EU close behind.
On the eve of the conference, Canada had asked India to take on binding GHG emission caps, while Japan had asked for common emission targets for all countries across the same industry.
India has already rejected both positions. Britain and Germany have asked India to set energy efficiency targets.
In response to that, another member of the Indian government delegation here had told IANS: “We’re all for energy efficiency, but we’re not going to set mandatory targets.”