The climate change stalemate between developing and developed countries is enough to make a pessimist out of anyone. Long years ago in the late 1980s, Margaret Thatcher (in a move that hasn?t got nearly the recognition it deserves) became one of the first global leaders to raise a global warming alert. When the Kyoto Protocol was signed nearly a decade later, then US President George W Bush refused to submit the treaty for Senate ratification because it exempted countries like India and China. The understanding, shared by UNFCC, was that the largest share of global emissions of greenhouse gases historically originated in developed countries. An equitable framework for ?common but differentiated responsibilities? would naturally allow for developing countries to increase emissions to meet increasing social and developmental needs. Following from this principle of equity, India has repeatedly reiterated that since climate change is not taking place due to current emission levels alone, industrialised countries must make extra commitments that reflect their greenhouse leads. While refusing a reduction target for developing countries at the L?Aquila G-8 meeting as at previous such forums, it proudly flaunts a unilateral commitment not to allow per capita greenhouse emissions to exceed the average per capita emissions of developed countries. Morally, that?s strong ground. The argument of history is ethically indefensible. But since history offers none of us any protection from the battering of climate change, we will have to work a way around the current stalemate. The sooner the better.
Even as the G-8 was agreeing to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 (base year is still unclear), there came fresh news of climate change?s unanticipated side-effects. Science reported that as winters on Scotland?s Soay island are becoming shorter and milder, they are making food more abundant for native sheep. So, smaller and smaller sheep?which would never have survived to maturity in times past?are winning the struggle for survival. That?s just luck of the draw. By all accounts, India is not likely to do well by it. Extreme weather events like droughts and floods are all expected to increase. We will need all available scientific arsenal to cope with these developments. It would be foolhardy to assume we can home grow such a battery. The US department of defence alone spends $79 billion on internal R&D. That puts, forget us, even the British armed services? $4-billion budget looking like dirt. These militaries are in serious search of new alternative fuel sources. Stimulus packages are also pouring money into green R&D. Then there are efficient and energy conserving technologies that countries like Japan have already mastered. Incidentally, whatever the broader economy numbers say, Japan?s homebuilder Sekisui expects sales of small houses powered by sunlight to rise five-fold in two years. India recognises the need for climate-friendly technologies. In coming months, what it may have to adjust to is the idea of paying for these, perhaps in the shape of emission concessions. Whatever morality may demand, it doesn?t look like they are coming to us for free.
