We can fight climate change if we care by Shankari Sundararaman

As we approach the global summit on climate change in December 2009 in Copenhagen, critical concerns are likely to emerge. Both the United Nations conference last week and the subsequent G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh left several issues somewhat ambiguous. While the United States spoke of reduction in its emissions, these remain insignificant. At the G-20 meet, leaders stated that they would "intensify efforts to reach an agreement at Copenhagen and undertake strong action to address the threats of climate change". This is mere rhetoric. The upcoming December summit at Copenhagen may also not address some of the challenges that are vital in tackling climate change.

Efforts to address climate change dates back to 1992 when the agreement on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) came into place. This was ratified as the Kyoto protocol, adopted in 1997 and entered into force in 2005. However, the Kyoto protocol’s goals remain unfulfilled since the US did not ratify it. The Kyoto protocol placed greater emphasis on developed countries, leaving the developing countries out of the scenario.

The next step under the Bali Action Plan of 2007 was to look into what developed countries could provide by cutting their carbon emissions and demonstrate their ability to drive their economies with low-carbon options. However, as already indicated in President Barack Obama’s speech at the UN, the impact of the economic recession affects the manner in which developed countries will focus their efforts on the reduction of emissions and reliability on low-carbon options as it will impact the pace of industrialisation and cause the developed world to loose its competitive edge. Therefore, the expectation that the developed world will pledge to make deep cuts in carbon emissions at the forthcoming summit needs to be more clearly evaluated. The crux of the argument was that the developing countries need not be more responsible than the developed world in this regard. The debate borders around two dichotomous issues. First is the developed countries’ burden of historical responsibility and their contribution to cut Greenhouse gas emissions. Second is the argument by the developed countries that the issue of population contribution by the developing countries has left a legacy of successive generations who will continue contributing to the hazard of climate change.

The Asia-Pacific region remains critically locked into the issue of climate change, given the fact that the two fastest-growing economies of India and China are within this region. The forthcoming Copenhagen summit is likely to see a group of developing countries such as Brazil, China and India come together to form a front against the attempts of the developed countries to push for a legally-binding clause on carbon emissions.

While the defence of these economies remains that they are fast growing and need the energy resources to push forward their economic growth, the West is making huge demands by asking these countries to accept legally-binding emission cuts which they themselves have been unable to do.

While the option of a concerted effort by the developing world remains crucial, China has already signed a bilateral Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on enhancing bilateral cooperation on climate change, energy and environment, with the US. This MoU significantly locks the US and China into a bilateral deal which may address issues relating to emissions but leave both India and Brazil out of the reckoning. Given that the US and China are the largest emitters, the possibility of what is emerging as a "G-2" is going to critically reshape the context of the Copenhagen summit.

Other regional players that will remain significant are Japan and Australia. Japan has already followed the Chinese lead and has agreed to cut emissions. Both these countries have also emphasised the willingness to push ahead plans for alternative renewable sources of energy. Australia is also showing serious intent in shaping the outcome of the Copenhagen summit.

In fact, Indonesia and other East Asian countries are also taking a step in the right direction. Smaller regional countries too can assist in helping cut emissions individually. The Asean-Australia Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) is likely to impact the way the region can devise its own approach to the issue of climate change.

The "global ETS" is of critical importance and will impact the shape of the forthcoming summit. What the ETS provides in substance is a trade facility where the richer countries that emit more carbon emissions can buy carbon credits from the poorer countries. While this helps to bring in foreign exchange for developing countries, the flip side is that by pushing the developing countries to cuts emissions, there is likely to be greater reduction in their use of fossil fuels which they are reliant upon. In many cases, like in India and China, this could impact the growth potential that has been pushed forward by industrialisation and the percolation effect of this to reach the lower economic strata could be affected in the long-term. So there is a need for greater willingness on the part of the Western countries to share technologies of cheaper fuel and energy with the developing world — this will reduce their dependency on fossil fuel and yet provide the necessary energy options to continue with their economic growth.

One of the approaches to addressing the issue of climate change is to increase the number of stakeholders. Within individual countries, the possibility of decentralising the issue by including both state and non-state actors pushes the agenda forward. The second approach beyond the state structure is to push forward the regional and global level contexts.

Western countries need to demonstrably prove their willingness to be larger stakeholders in impeding, if not altering, the course of climate change. But having a stake in the preservation of the existing conditions and in halting the course of climate change, the developing world too has to show that its use of traditional fuels would be reduced. Ultimately there is only one realisation that will be significant — that both the developed and developing countries need to preserve this earth for future generations. All arguments need to be tailored to ensure that we meet this key goal.