Disproportionate liability

Climate change is not only affecting weather systems and the environment but also the economy and livelihoods. Between 1981 and 2010, a decline in global mean yields of maize, wheat and soybean was observed along with a substantial depletion of fish stocks. The World Bank estimates that around 120 million people may slide into poverty by 2030. Besides, as per WHO estimates, 2.5 lakh additional annual deaths may occur by 2050 due to diarrheal disease, malaria, dengue, coastal flooding, etc. as a consequence of rising temperature. Practically the 'climate emergency' is on.

The fifth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2014, indicated that during the 21st century, the global surface temperature is likely to rise by 0.3 to 1.7 degree Celsius in moderate scenarios and 2.6 to 4.8 degree Celsius in extreme scenarios. Limiting global warming at least to 1.5 degree Celsius means reducing global GHG emissions to net-zero by 2050 — an ambitious vision that calls for drastic, far-reaching, systematic changes in energy production, land transport, and manufacturing activities. To achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, fossil fuel — which accounts for 80 per cent of energy — needs to be substituted by renewable energy (solar and wind power, bioenergy, geothermal energy and hydropower) along with restoration of the natural ecosystem by reforestation. It is an uphill task.

Unfortunately, in spite of a series of conferences and agreements, progress in the management of climate change is nowhere near the desired levels. Perhaps revisiting the schema is necessary. At the outset, the campaign seems to be suffering from a lack of global leadership. It is strange that dominant world powers, who wield political and economic control on the majority of member nations, shy away from providing effective leadership for a global concern of this sort. With no regard for individual capabilities, all member nations are treated alike and mandated to implement climate protocols — an impractical proposal in a world of inequalities.

Evidently, inequity in terms of sharing responsibility for emissions and commensurate efforts for mitigation is an issue. The question of 'historical responsibility' cannot be dismissed as a mere blame game, especially when the same developed countries which emitted CO2 and GHG in alarming quantities into the atmosphere during the last 200 years still continue to do so today. Between 1850 and 2007, the US emitted 3,39,174 MT of CO2 (28.8 per cent), followed by China (nine per cent), Russia (eight per cent), Germany, (seven per cent), the UK (six per cent) whereas developing countries like India didn't emit even three per cent. Per capita emission of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, in comparison to the US, is not even one-twentieth. Actually, the first international climate treaty (UNFCCC,1992) emphasised on historical responsibilities and proportionate actions, even the Kyoto protocol (1997) classified nations into developed (Annex-1) and developing (Annex-2) for the same reason. But the Paris agreement (2015) dispenses with such classification and provides for the inclusion of reduction of emission in one country as Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and another through carbon trading and accounting. In short, the rich nations do not have to actually reduce emissions, provided they buy carbon credits or invest in Joint Implementation (JI). Though the Paris agreement binds nations to limit global temperature 'well below two degree Celsius' and strive to limit it to 1.5 degree Celsius. It remains silent on who should do what to achieve the target.

Failure of disarmament led to huge military spending in all countries. The arms industry, which contributes five per cent of the total global carbon emission, is run mainly in the United States, Russia, France, Germany and China who already have high emissions. Surprisingly, the Kyoto agreement exempted the US overseas military operations, thanks to the 'military industrial complex' of the US (a clique of armed forces, commerce and politics). A study (sgr.org.uk) revealed that total carbon emissions of the US military operations between 2001 and 2017 was 59 million tonnes — equivalent to the total emissions of an industrialised country like Sweden. The UK military budget has a total carbon footprint of 13 million tonnes. Emissions of Russia and China also may not be lesser. If the 'world powers' are serious about mitigation, they should set examples by at least winding up their overseas military operations as a good start for global disarmament. It was observed that the cost of addressing climate change is around USD 56-73 billion per year and, if only 10 per cent of global military spending is spent for SDG 13 Climate action, it would greatly cover the costs of developing countries on adaptation to climate change.

Third world countries are more vulnerable to climate change in terms of facing disastrous socioeconomic consequences than the developed countries. As such, 'Justice and fairness' must be the underlying principles, as a large number of developing economies haven't yet reached the 'take off' stage. The 'free rider problem' (all countries benefiting from emission reduction by a few countries) should not dissuade the more capable countries from performing their moral responsibility of mitigation, as the benefits to the environment and mankind are worth the costs. Moreover, rich nations with export-oriented economies and higher levels of emissions should be more considerate since the third world provides them with the largest market.

Measures to mitigate climate change are expensive. Shifting to a sustainable zero-carbon model entails huge expenditure. The third world nations with issues such as hunger, malnutrition, disease, poverty and unemployment are struggling hard even to achieve reasonable growth rates, let alone spending additionally for managing climate change. Developed countries should play a pioneering role in sustainable development. It is, however, not to absolve developing countries of their own obligations towards reducing emissions but to underscore the need for handholding. For example, the process of 'coal phase out' can be supported in these countries with technology transfer and funding, ensuring 'just transition' (securing workers' rights and livelihoods due to shifting to sustainable production). But the predicament is, 'coal phase out' is yet to be implemented even in developed nations like the US, China, Germany, UK which depend up to 80 per cent exclusively on coal even today.

Different strategies may be required in addressing climate change. Developed countries should focus more on 'mitigation' efforts in terms of reducing emissions and shifting to sustainable development models while the developing countries should prioritise 'adaptation' which means adjustments in ecological, social and economic systems in response to climate change. Country-specific changes in practices and processes can be initiated, protecting the interests of stakeholders in order to withstand the impact of climate change.

Finally, collective action is indispensable as climate change is proving to be a leveller. The unprecedented hot summers, massive wildfires, tornados and flash floods in the US, Germany, France and Canada are eye-openers. Fighting climate change calls for a global movement. Conventions and protocols should be respected on par with those on human rights, rights of women and children etc. Balancing our economic and environmental needs with joint action is the aim of sustainable development goals (SDGs) which also focus on eradicating poverty and reducing inequalities. The developed countries who exercise substantial control on international institutions must provide leadership, taking the developing countries on board and extending proper support and help. Actions speak louder than words.

The writer is a former Additional Chief Secretary of Chhattisgarh. Views expressed are personal