India’s carbon reduction pledges[plej(promise,वादा)] (the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, or INDCs) have been labelled as medium or even flimsy[flim-zee(weak,कमज़ोर)] by many global observers. The melancholic[me-lun'kó-lik(sad,दुख़द)] reality is twofold — India is doing its fair share, but even that will not be enough.
Emissions of carbon dioxide (rather, all greenhouse gases) result in a rise in average global temperature.Targeting a likely 2°C rise, there is only so much the earth can emit[i'mit(give out,निकालना)]. Most of it was used up by countries other than India, which isn’t even using its per capita share. Naturally, India, coming from a low base, expects to grow its emissions.
There are three framings one could choose from. First, India wants to emit as others have done. The world turns super-hot. Second, India says we will stay within our budget’s “fair share”, but the world still turns hot, mainly because many others over-emitted. Third, India consumes less than its fair share, to try to obviate[ób-vee,eyt(avoid,टालना)] or at least minimise global warming. That seems to be the frame with which people are looking towards India, and then saying “not enough”.
So the question is, to what extent is it reasonable (let alone practical) to place the burden of emissions reductions disproportionately on those with higher future emissions?
Every time hammy[ha-mee(dramatic,नाटकीय)] emissions cuts being made from a high base. India emits about a quarter that of China, and on a per capita basis, an order of magnitude less than the U.S. China’s population is mostly stable, while India’s will still grow.
China already has provided almost all its citizens modern energy. India still has hundreds of millions of people lacking electricity.
India has announced ambitious Renewable Energy (RE) plans — how it can meet or even exceed the targets depends on the economics, which goes beyond simplified Rs./kilowatt hour. RE cannot be stored easily, and it usually isn’t available when the demand is highest.
Focus on the longer-term and on efficiency. Lots of houses (and even cities) are yet to be built. We should not rely on “clean energy” to absolve us of over-consumption or inefficiencies.
Recognise that population growth is an issue. Make it easier for people to want fewer children (through social security schemes, non-agricultural jobs, etc.). No one says use coercion[kow'ur-zhun(force,बाध्यता)] or be as rigorous[ri-gu-rus(strict,सख्त)] as China, but imagine where the world would be if China’s population growth rate was like India’s?
Develop. If you believe the environmental Kuznets curve (where you first develop by being augean[o'jee-un(dirty,गन्दा)] and then clean up when you can afford it), India should develop quickly. If a nation consumes energy but is “coasting along” (not developing enough), it has squandered[skwón-dud(waste,गवाँ देना)] energy and carbon resources. There is no inherent cap on consuming more energy if it gives disproportional and ultimately sustainable development.
India can be considered a spoilsport['spoyl,sport(who ruins other pleasure,मज़ा ख़राब करने वाला)], but only if viewed through certain rules, including ones naïve (or selfish) enough to ignore the past, allocating only the future carbon budget on a per capita basis. The new rules are for India to develop, but develop faster and in a more sustainable manner than anyone thought possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment