The recently concluded summit of G8 and the Major Economies Forum (MEF) held at L?Aquila, Italy, could be considered a curtain raiser to the big fight at Copenhagen in December?on sharing the onus of global warming between developed and developing countries. The summit that is usually a forum of the world?s 8 richest countries has attained a more global dimension this year, with representatives of 40 countries and international bodies. The club of 8 rich polluters and emitters was primarily aimed at bullying the emerging giants, namely India and China, and divert attention from the responsibility that arises out of the historic accrual of CO2 ?stocks? in the atmosphere to one that arises from emerging ?flows? of CO2.
Despite the bellicose resistance put up by China and India on grounds of development concerns, the final outcome turned out to be a mixed blessing for G8 and does send a strong political message across the world, much ahead of the negotiations due to take place in December under the aegis of UNFCCC.
The final declaration of the MEF leaders (including India) on energy and climate change recognises the scientific view that increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels should not exceed 2?C. Although the declaration is arguably more political and lacks adequate teeth and credibility, the acknowledgement by India itself is a turnaround from the disbelief that cropped up around the scientific basis of the ball-point estimate of 2?C, which members within the scientific community are still debating. Acceptance only provides a leeway to rich parties to tighten their noose on India and China for a cap on ?total emissions?, which cannot be justified under any circumstances. This is because aggregate emission at the ?take-off? stage in the process of economic growth cannot be equated with the emission that has been historically accrued from the ?take-off? stage to a ?self-sustained growth? process for the club of rich polluters. The challenges in the former case are completely different from those in the latter case. Incremental emissions from the rich club now are attributed more to their lifestyles as compared to the emissions for countries like India, where they are intertwined with basic survival. If one accounts for intergenerational equity and poverty-sensitive polluter pays principle, a more comprehensive and ethical indicator would be per capita rather than absolute emissions, but the MEF declaration has stuffed this under the carpet as it would thwart the intention of the rich club to throttle poorer and emerging counterparts.
The MEF declaration states, ?Drawing on global best practice policies, we undertake to remove barriers, establish incentives, enhance capacity-building, and implement appropriate measures to aggressively accelerate deployment and transfer of key existing and new low-carbon technologies, in accordance with national circumstances.? The issue of technology transfer has always been contentious. Although the rich club has been consistently underscoring reduction of tariff barriers for low carbon goods and services, the real impediments to technology transfer are intellectual property rights (IPRs). The rich club has always been insistent on poorer counterparts strengthening their IPRs (irrespective of their technological capabilities), for a more effective transfer of technology. From the MEF declaration, it is quite obvious that the rich club would continue to harp on the same string for the transfer of Environmentally Sound Technologies (ESTs). Although the declaration has a positive undercurrent, only time will tell how credible the commitments of the rich club are towards smoother deployment and diffusion of technology for the larger cause of disproportionate impact due to climate change on the poorer counterparts.
The declaration further states, ?Our countries will undertake transparent nationally appropriate mitigation actions, subject to applicable measurement, reporting, and verification, and prepare low-carbon growth plans?. Notwithstanding the political nature of the declaration, the unconditional acceptance of this is again counter to what India has been claiming so far on ground of sovereignty and in concordance with the Bali Action Plan that only those actions that are enabled by measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV) funds and technologies from the rich club would be subject to international scrutiny. There is no reason why India should retract from its stand when the commitments on the technology transfer front from the rich club are still obscure.
Although the G8 Declaration does not have adequate credibility, India should not have put the cart before the horse on aforesaid grounds and exposed itself to more pressure when it is already grappling with a multitude of priorities on the home front. It can only be hoped that the Indian government reaffirms its stand more firmly on more appropriate and ethical indicators for target-setting and technology transfer, as it goes into the December negotiations.
?The author is a senior fellow at the Asian Institute of Transport Development. Views are personal