A decade or two from now, the world should be able to look back at the UN climate conference in Paris But will we? There is real anxiety in India, and other poorer countries that rely heavily on coal, that the stance of advanced nations might in one vital respect stand in the way of successfully fighting climate change.
In the run-up to the conference, there is a growing call — first articulated[aa'tik-yu,leyt(express,उल्लेख)] clearly at this year’s summit of the Group of Seven leading industrialised nations — to phase out fossil fuels. The US and others have also vowed[vaw(promise,वादा)] to vote against fossil fuel energy projects in developing countries when multilateral development banks are voting on them. Meanwhile, the US produces at least 35 per cent more coal than India.
For India — a country struggling to provide basic electricity to about 25 per cent of the population, according to conservative estimates.
In fact, rather than replacing coal, the only way India and other poorer nations can both meet their needs and minimise damage to the environment may be to find effective techniques to “clean and green” coal.
Under any plausible[plo-zu-bul(believable,विश्वसनीय)] scenario, coal will provide about 40-60 per cent of India’s energy until 2030. It will, and should, remain the country’s primary energy source because it is the cheapest fuel available.
But India is neither incognizant[in'kóg-ni-zunt(unaware,अनजान)] of the social costs of coal nor is it lax in promoting renewables. It has already started taxing carbon, both explicitly[ik'spli-sit(clearly,स्पष्ठ)] and implicitly[im'pli-sit-lee(unclearly,अव्यक्त रुप से)]. The coal tax has quadrupled[kwó'droo-pul(four times,चौगुना)] to Rs 200 ($3) a tonne since 2014. This has resulted in an implicit carbon tax of $2 a tonne of CO2 on domestic coal. This may, of course, still not be enough to cover all the social costs of carbon use.
There has also been a substantial circuitous[sur'kyoo-i-tus(indirect,अप्रत्यक्ष)] tax on carbon. In response to the fall in the oil price, the government has eliminated subsidies on petrol and diesel and increased taxes. India has therefore moved from a negative price — that is, a subsidy — to a positive price on carbon emissions. In contrast, the governments of most advanced countries have simply passed on the benefits to consumers, setting back the cause of curbing[kur-bing(control,नियंत्रण)] climate change.
India is committed to an ambitious renewables programme, ramping up renewables capacity from 35 gigawatts today to 175 gigawatts by 2022. But as Bill Gates, Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist[fi'lan-thru-pist(altruistic,charitable,परोपकारी)] , has pointed out, the prices of properly costed renewables are not competitive with coal today, and they are not likely to be any time soon.
So, although Delhi is committed to curbing climate change and to promoting renewables, making coal clean is vital to the country’s development. However, this cannot be done by India, or anyone else, alone.
the world collectively needs to embark[em'baak(enter,प्रवेश)] on a programme akin[u'kin(similar,के समान)] to the Manhattan project that produced the first nuclear bomb.
This would require investment from both public and private sectors, in advanced and developing nations, as well as a range of policy instruments. But the rich world’s preoccupation with phasing out fossil fuels creates a risk that the private sector — already lukewarm about investing in cleaning coal — will read the signals and abandon[u'ban-dun(leave,त्यागना)] this project altogether.
No comments:
Post a Comment