As nations prepare to meet in Paris to strike a long-term climate deal, the gap between what the science say? The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) has pointed out clearly that there is only a specific cumulative amount of greenhouse gases that humanity can emit[i'mit(give out,निकालना)] into the atmosphere, to keep the rise in global average temperature below a specified level, for a given level of uncertainty.
What is the amount left for the future? The Synthesis Report of the AR5 provides two values for different probabilities. For a less than 33 per cent chance of a global temperature increase of 2 C, the cumulative emissions between 2011 and 2100 of carbon dioxide specifically must stay below 1,000 billion tonnes.if we take account of non-carbon dioxide gases too, the total emissions lie within 1,192 to 2,000 billion tonnes for the same range of probabilities, though the higher end is unlikely to find much favour among the most vulnerable[vúl-nu-ru-bul(weak,कमज़ोर)] countries.
Faced with limits of this kind, one would have thought the appropriate response would be to find a fair and equitable distribution of this global carbon budget among all nations. After all, the atmosphere is a global commons that should be shared equitably. But due to the adamant[a-du-munt(inflexible,अटल)] refusal of the developed countries, we have today the exact opposite.
Indeed, in grim counter-point, the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has estimated that the total carbon dioxide emissions expected after the reduction from these commitments (known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions or INDCs) amounts to 750 billion tonnes until 2030. In other words, if the budget for the future is 1,000 billion tonnes for the next 80 years, 75 per cent would be consumed in only the first 15.In per capita terms, the developed nations’ cumulative emissions so far is approximately 1.8 times what they can rightfully claim, and including other indicators only exacerbates[ig'za-su,beyt(worsens,बिगाड़ना)] this inequity.
In this situation, India, like a majority of the developing nations, with perhaps the exception of China and a few oil-producers, is in a double bind. On the one hand, an early agreement — based on a reasonably safe level of the global carbon budget that would ensure that the burden of adaptation does not become onerous[ó-nu-rus(heavy,भारी)] for the bulk of the Indian population, and indeed that of the world — is a necessity. Currently, the negotiations do not seem headed in this direction at all. On the other hand, without adequate[a-di-kwut(enough,पर्याप्त)] access to an equitable share of the global carbon budget, India’s developmental efforts would be faced with energy costs that would have no previous parallel in human history. Carbon space that is once used up cannot be recovered, since greenhouse gases once emitted persist in the atmosphere-land-surface ocean system for at least a millennium. The INDCs of the developed countries constitute a carbon grab on this scarce[skehrs(not enough,अपर्याप्त)] resource.now what india should do?
First, the so-called “red line,” of the United Progressive Alliance dispensation, that India would accept no limits whatsoever on its emissions, even in the long-term, is outdated and must be discarded.
Second, India must step forward to operationalise the concept of equity in climate negotiations and not simply use it in defensive mode. Third, with an adequate benchmark for equity, India and developing countries can adequately engage with any process of the periodic review of commitments that would emerge from the negotiations.
India must firmly avoid the temptation in Paris to view negotiations solely through the lens of realpolitik. Securing a part of India and the developing countries’ developmental future within the framework of global environmental sustainability is the challenge, and India cannot afford to drop the ball(mistake,गलती) at this juncture[júngk-chu(point,मोड़)] .
Download monthly pdf of October
No comments:
Post a Comment