?WE CAN?T SIGN AWAY OUR FUTURE?

The developed countries are being oblivious to their responsibility?both for mitigation and resources. This is not an aid. This is their responsibility for have they caused the problem. Developed nations want to essentially shift the burden to the major developing countries and they want much weaker actions and commitments. Dr Prodipto Ghosh, Chief Negotiator for India, is not confident of an agreement at Copenhagen, but is sure to put across India?s point forcefully, as he tells Moumita Chakrabarti and Suman Tarafdar.

How much of emission cuts can India afford to balance its much needed growth?

We know that the accumulation of the Green Houses Gases (GHG) in the atmosphere is the cause of the climate change and this is due to industrialised world, which started roughly in 1850s with the Industrial Revolution. Developing countries have been extremely frugal in their use of energy and emission of GHG. In respect of the current per capita emissions between India and the developed world, the ratio varies between 10 and 20. In terms of cumulative contributions from 1850, the ratio would be close to 1:60 or 1:100.

We have to understand that India?s only serious energy source is coal and to raise our people to a minimally acceptable income standard by 2030, we have to maintain a GDP growth of 8%+ till then. We have 800 million population who are below the $2 a day in purchasing power parity terms and more than 350 million below a dollar a day besides 474 million people who still don?t have access to electricity.

How much of a problem is India being seen as?

Well, in the Annexe 1, it is stated that we have not been a problem in the past; we are not a problem in the present but we would be a huge problem in the future. However, modelling results show that by 2030 we will still be lower than the then global average? 4.2 times per capita. Now, the developed countries are saying that the developing economies must reduce emissions by 30% from their current baselines. This would involve an undiscounted energy system cost of more than 800 billion dollars. And it would lead to an energy services cost of more than one trillion dollars.

What would be the macro-economic cost of implementing green practices?

The most effective policy that we can introduce is the carbon tax. We have kept increasing carbon tax from 20 to 40 to 80 dollars, beyond which it is unimaginable. But even after imposing $80 of carbon tax, we can?t reach anywhere near to 30%of the requirement, we can only reach 5 or 6%. But the total macroeconomic costs, depending on the specific assumptions you make, is between three to four trillion dollars, which we cannot afford. India is extremely vulnerable to the vagaries of climate?floods, drought, cyclones, malaria, epidemics. So we have to spend a great deal in disaster management. If we look at the budget it comes to about 2.7% of our GDP (2006-07). This is even more than our defence expenditure.

How responsible is the first world?s position on taking blame for climate change?

The developed countries are being oblivious to their responsibility?both for mitigation and resources. They are trying to get away from the terms of the UNFCCC and the Bali Action Plan and they want to essentially shift the burden to the major developing countries. The developed countries have completed the process of industrialisation. Look back to the history. What happened to the developed countries when the started on the path of industrialisation? Their population exploded. We are following the same track but we have very vigorous family planning programme. We are not saying that they have to become poor but they have to consume more sustainably. Waste generated has to be recycled. In India we do 100% recycling.

If the countries fail to come to an agreement, how much blame will come to India?

Nobody can question either on the adaptation side or the mitigation side of not being serious about climate change. While there are large requirements of resources, we also have to address the issue of technology transfer. India?s position is that we have to stick to the provisions of the Bali Action Plan and the UNFCCC.

How crucial are the issues of technology transfer and funding?

We would need resources of finance and technology through the conventions. Not as bilateral aid. We are fully willing to be subject to measurement and verification provided that the support received should also be subject to measurement and verification. According to Article 4.1, 4.3, 4.7 of the UNFCCC whenever a developing country takes climate change actions they are to be compensated to the extent of full implementation cost and technology transfer from the developed countries. We are not going to the Summit to sign away our future. The globe has to stabilise and equality has to be maintained. If you ask for zero emission, then you should show us how to do it. We cannot remain at a per capita income of 1/10th of that of the world. We are bringing down cost by R&D and deployment. But do not tell us to remain there for another two decades.

The Copenhagen Summit for Climate Change has a crucial role to play?but the roadmap should be towards sharing the burden amongst all the countries. Shyam Saran, Special Envoy of the Prime Minister of India, states the points on which India would place their case on table. In an interaction with Moumita Chakrabarti, he shares more about India?s stand. Excerpts:

Given that a comprehensive treaty looks more unlikely by the day, what issues hold maximum priority for India?

During the negotiating time available to us at Copenhagen, we will make all efforts to enlarge areas of convergence and aim for a comprehensive, legally binding outcome. If the consensus, at the end of negotiations is that we can only produce a political document at Copenhagen, then we would be ready to continue negotiations for a legally binding outcome at the earliest within 2010. Furthermore, these subsequent negotiations must be based on the principles and provisions of the UNFCCCand in accordance with the mandate of the Bali Action Plan. There must be no dilution of the template for the post-Copenhagen negotiations.

As a Special Envoy from the Prime Minister, is there something Dr Singh is especially anxious to see achieved at Copenhagen?

Recently, at Port of Spain at the Commonwealth Summit, Dr Manmohan Singh pressed strongly for a comprehensive and substantive outcome at Copenhagen, covering mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology. He also emphasised the need to ensure that the principle of equity and equitable burden-sharing must be maintained. Climate Change action, he said, based on the perpetuation of poverty, would not be sustainable. He acknowledged the imperative of science, which compels ambitious climate change action but emphasised, at the same time, that science could not be used to trump equity.

Given China?s recent unilateral announcement on emission cuts by 45%, how much pressure is India facing to commit to a figure? Is the stand of G-77 plus China still a unified one?

India has a better record in maintaining a steady decline in the energy intensity of our GDP growth, starting from a much lower baseline than China. This decline will continue with the notable measures being implemented under the National Action Plan on Climate Change, the Integrated Energy Policy document and the Energy Conservation Act. We expect an improvement in our energy intensity by more than 20% up to 2020. Therefore, there is no reason for India to be on the defensive. The G77 plus China has remained a cohesive group t and has put forward co-ordinated positions on all key issues.

Given the pressures, how well is India?s stand being taken at the global platform?

There is increasing appreciation of India?s stand at the negotiations as also the significant actions that the country has been taking on mitigation and adaptation, without waiting for international financial and technological support. There is no question of India being characterised as a ?spoiler? since as a developing country, India has a much greater stake in success at Copenhagen. This is fully understood both among the developed and developing countries. However, India should not be hustled into taking positions that are inimical to its interests for fear of being portrayed negatively.