The need to rethink the past paradigm

The recent assessment report of the United Nation?s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate dispels any lingering doubts. It draws on new and more comprehensive data, more accurate simulation models of climate processes, and sophisticated data analysis to pronounce climate system warming ?unequivocal? and the causes ?very likely? to be human activity. This report does not focus on climate change?s impacts, but the human and social costs are glaring from between the lines of the report. The phrase ?observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level? mean submerged coasts, fewer islands, flooding rivers, and agricultural disruption for India. Imagine Mumbai as a set of islands again. Two islands in the Sunderbans have already disappeared.

?Numerous long-term changes in climate have been observed [including] widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones,? is a dry way of saying that last year?s floods in Rajasthan and droughts in Tamil Nadu may actually become ?normal.? The effects are already noticeable.

India can and must be a leader in responding, both at home and internationally. Domestic emissions of black carbon/elemental carbon (a.k.a soot) are an easy target. The strategies for limiting black carbon emissions are straightforward. Tackle biomass-based cooking. Allocate more funding for ?smokeless chulhas? and ensure that these are suitable for local cooking needs. Any programme should work in partnership with local NGOs, and community organizations to learn about design needs as well as collaborate in distribution and education about the stoves. Do more than subsidize cooking gas: support its distribution to rural areas and crack down on tampering with the cylinders. Less than half of India?s population is covered by domestic LPG gas.

Moving on to fossil fuel, we must crack down on fuel adulteration and provide incentives for engine tuning. Deliver on rural electrification promises to reduce reliance on diesel generators. Encourage CNG buses and cabs, perhaps in conjunction with the NURM project to offer transition financing for the change. Reducing urban pollution definitely qualifies as ?renewal?.

International strategies are trickier. India is a developing country, starting to ramp up its fossil fuel use and emissions after the richer countries have contributed to the problem for decades. Yet, it is one of the world?s largest countries and, along with China, the future centre of emissions as well as economic activity. India has two choices: stubbornly claim its right to unfettered emissions in its economic transition, or acknowledge that the world has changed and that development today might require different strategies than it did last century.

India has always sought differentiated treatment in any international agreements to limit emissions. It currently has no reduction obligations and can earn credit under the Clean Develop-ment Mechanism (CDM) for the emissions it does forgo. There are three reasons to reconsider this stance and to consider committing to phased limits on emissions growth. India should not have to overpay for past emissions, but it also should not underpay for its current and future emissions.

First, full exemption from emission controls is not sustainable. The negotiations over emission controls look like a classic war of attrition: stubborn adherence to positions, while the costs of stalling steadily increase. Climate change will affect India at least as much as the developed nations that it blames for the problem. It is not as if climate change gives India special differentiated treatment.

India may very well be forced into emission controls at some point in the future. Most wars of attrition end when the player with the highest costs of continuing cedes and agrees to do something about the (by then much worse) problem. India could better shape the emission control regime by taking a proactive stance now. It is also easier to plan ahead than correct and replace investments that have already been made.

Second, the energy efficiency?one component of limiting emissions?is not necessarily incompatible with rapid growth. One suggestive piece of evidence: China?s energy intensity of GDP (measured as BTU per dollar of GDP) decreased by 4.5% annually in the 1980s and nearly 6% annually over the 1990s according to the US Energy Information Administration. India also has the domestic scientific/technical capacity to compete in the growing international market for green technology. The international market would be enough to spur innovation and R&D in a perfect world, but emission controls might help in an imperfect setting by creating stronger domestic demand for green technology.

Third, the demonstration value of emission controls would short-circuit many of the current international cries of ?but they need to stop polluting before we do.? India is home to a fifth of the world?s population and many of the world?s poorest. If it commits to emission reductions, others have few excuses. It can play the leadership role.

There is a saying, ?Death waits for no man.? Neither does climate change. We must move away from past paradigm.

?Regular columnist NK Singh and Professor Jessica Wallack of the University of California, San Diego are collaborating on a book on infrastructure reform on India. Essays based on their research will appear on this page.