Tug of war

Can we only be followers? Never leaders? That is the kind of despair many Indians are sure to feel reading the newspapers. The latest being the government’s official stand on emissions presented before Parliament, coming after China’s announcement.
India will cut its carbon intensity (tons of CO2 per unit GDP) by 20-25 percent from the 2005 levels by 2020. China has offered 40-45 percent of 2005 levels by 2020.

Sounds bigger but again, experts calculate it comes to the same as in a business as usual scenario. If China can sustain a rate of decarbonization of 3.7% per year or more that would be a very impressive achievement. However, if China is going to continue to grow its economy at 9% per year, more needs to be done, analysts feel.

Coming to the nature of the two declarations, no legal binding, but a voluntary act that will not allow international scrutiny unless linked to foreign finds. Quoting Planning Commission documents the environment minister Jairam Ramesh talks of how India has cut its carbon intensity by 17.6 percent between 1990 and 2005. That will raise many eyebrows given that there were no energy auditors in the country then. How did the government arrive at this number?

That is another matter. But does its offer mean anything at the global level? Will fuel efficiency standards that stop at labeling of vehicles serve any purpose? Or the ‘modification’ of the EC Act to allow BEE to issue certificates help? How relevant are certificates in the Indian context? Are rewards the solution or will it take applying the stick too?

Leaders of Brazil, South Africa, India and China, a group collectively dubbed the "BASIC" countries along with Sudan as the head of the G77, a larger bloc of developing nations participating in the climate talks, agreed on a new draft negotiating position that argues that the Copenhagen framework should largely consist of an extension of the current Kyoto Protocol framework for a second commitment period running from 2012-2020.

Furthermore, the BASIC nations' "non-negotiable" planks include a pledge to stand opposed to any global deal in Copenhagen that does not explicitly reject the use of carbon border tariffs or other measures to restrict trade in the context. This is exactly what the US senators are favouring!

They are insisting that any international climate framework U.S. negotiators sign in Copenhagen must include comparable action from all major economies and allow tariffs to adjust prices on imports from any nation that does not agree to bindings agreements to reduce emissions "in specific trade- and energy-intensive economic sectors."

The U.S. should seek to negotiate a new international climate agreement under which, "All major economies should adopt ambitious, quantifiable, measurable, reportable and verifiable national actions" to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

New or old, a treaty for sure looks doomed.