The ineffectiveness of the international framework for combating climate change is evident from the fact that none of the targets set by it have yet been met. It is well known that this system is highly unequal. However, any suggestion of an alternative approach is considered against public belief.
An economic paper presented on Monday concluded that it is risky. Its two chapters on climate change are entirely devoted to pointing out flaws and imbalances in the system and recommending alternatives involving lifestyle and behavioral changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Too much concern with meeting the global warming mitigation target of 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius puts impossible pressure on developing countries. It forces them to make choices they are not ready for. It also diverts their attention and resources from the more immediate needs of improving the lives of their people, the paper noted.
The paper goes so far as to suggest that it is possible to imagine a warmer world that is more equal and resilient in all respects than one that has reached a 1.5 degree temperature limit.
This economic thesis does not deny climate change. These arguments are not new. It already has broad resonance in developing countries. These views are expressed in informal groups behind closed doors, not in a government policy document. It is not clear whether this economic thesis makes an academic argument or signals a potential shift in India’s energy transition path.
The economic thesis argues that adaptation should be given at least as much importance as mitigation – as the impacts of climate change are already manifesting, it is clear that the 1.5 degree temperature reduction target will be exceeded very soon. Regardless of what the world does (or doesn’t do) in this scenario, rapid improvements in incomes and the overall well-being of people are the best insurance against climate change.
Although there is a consensus among scientists that the frequency and intensity of climate impacts will increase with increasing temperatures, thresholds of 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees are chosen arbitrarily – they are not natural limits to climate change. Once these thresholds are exceeded, no climate impacts are triggered.
For those who do not accept the doomsday view that climate change will destroy the world in a few years, the argument of developing countries is understandable. Because climate impacts cannot be stopped, the world must focus on accelerating development and adapting climate change measures to increase resilience, especially among communities most at risk.
Counter-argument: At these higher temperatures, the ferocity of climate impacts will increase so much that incremental improvements in resilience will become ineffective.
Indeed, there are uncertainties in both sides of the argument. It is in this context that it is sometimes proposed that rich and developed countries should take on climate mitigation while developing countries focus on climate adaptation. But this is easier said than done.
Inequality and farce
This economic thesis reveals developing countries’ impatience with developed countries’ hypocrisy. The United States has the greatest historical responsibility, but the greatest lag in reducing carbon emissions. Its carbon emissions in 2019 were 6% higher than in 1990. Even now it is somewhat less. Developed countries collectively have not met their carbon emission reduction targets or pledged to provide finance or technology to developing countries.
Responsibility for these failures tends to shift to the rest of the world in the form of calls for enhanced climate action. Indeed, the international climate framework has always been less about saving the Earth from the effects of climate change and more about preserving the existing world order. It has become a vehicle for maintaining the hegemony of the rich and industrialized world, forcing changes that suit them best.
If it’s about climate, there’s no need to waste the Kyoto Protocol, which was so equitable and effective to deal with climate change. But the process of scrapping the Kyoto Protocol — replacing it with the more appropriate Paris Agreement — began soon after it came into force. Developed countries quickly realized that Kyoto had the potential to challenge the existing world order – or at least make it difficult to sustain it.
Scientific organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have reinforced the developed countries’ narrative. While it was largely clear that the 1.5 degree target would be exceeded, nearly every scientific assessment continued to present scenarios showing that the target was still possible with more effort. These scenarios may be plausible in theory, but are completely implausible given the countries’ track record. But each such report is followed by calls for more action, increasing the pressure on developing countries.
Recent work by Tejal Kanitkar, an assistant professor at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, and his colleagues shows how imbalances and biases are built into the models used by the IPCC to draw climate scenarios. Their studies show that the latest IPCC assessment ignores both the historical responsibility of developed countries and the future energy needs of developing countries.
Alternative approaches
A critique of the economic thesis on the established order on climate change must be followed by effective action.
As India builds its infrastructure, it can make India the most climate-resilient country in the world. But this does not seem to be happening at the speed and scale that is possible. Central Vista, for example, will be a huge improvement over the current set of buildings in the Central Secretariat complex. But it remains to be seen whether this will be a better model for future building.
Smart city projects launched nine years ago have many elements of climate proofing. But most of these cities still struggle to manage their sewage.
The railway stations to be constructed will be much better than the existing railway stations. But they may not be the most climate-friendly stations in the world.
India offers a mission life that calls for lifestyle and behavioral changes as a key ingredient of its climate change strategy. But, it is yet to become a mass movement. Pointing to the over-consumption lifestyles of developed countries can be of quantitative use when the rich in India engage in similar over-consumption.
