Just vs unjust transition

Also Read: Devise a WTO-compatible retaliation mechanism to deal with EU’s carbon tax: GTRI to govt

First, let us view JT across countries. Should all countries bear the burden of this transition equally or should the developed countries shoulder a significant share of the burden? This is considering the fact that cumulatively, they have been the major polluters who have used up most of the carbon space and fully responsible for today’s 1°C rise in the earth’s temperature when compared to pre-industrial levels (1850). Incidentally, the UNFCCC report (1992) mentioned that the climate should be protected on the basis of equity and in accordance with the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ (CBDR) and respective capabilities, meaning that though all countries are responsible, the extent of responsibility varies. The principle of CBDR was bitterly opposed by the developed world, especially the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. This principle of CBDR was engraved in the Kyoto Protocol (1997) which assigned reductions in carbon emissions to be targeted by the developed countries though no targets were assigned to the developing countries. This was clearly a transition which was just since one could not expect the poor developing economies to curtail their economic progress (by reducing use of fossil fuels) just because the rich countries have burnt fossil fuels to the hilt and gained prosperity. Unfortunately, from the principle of CBDR set in 1992, today, we have moved to a regime where the onus lies on the developed and developing countries equally. The United States, Canada, Japan, and Russia, in any case, abandoned the Kyoto Protocol in stages and today we are guided by the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) wherein each country gives its own targets for reducing carbon footprints which are monitored. The NDCs have to be revised every five years since 2015 (Paris Agreement) and the targets need to be made increasingly stiff. The first round of revisions has already taken place, though belatedly, on account of the pandemic. The fact of the matter is that the developed world has got away despite being the major polluter, cumulatively, and this clearly is an unjust transition.

Coming to issues within a country, the oft repeated example is that of the coal industry. Taking the specific case of India, we have announced that we will become net-zero by 2070. This would mean that our carbon emissions should peak by around 2040 given that a 30-year window is required from the time one peaks carbon emissions before turning net-zero. Going net-zero by 2070 would mean that a large number of coal mines will need to be shut down and their workers will need to be shifted to other areas of gainful employment. Their redeployment (after reskilling) cannot possibly take place in the renewable sector since the renewable-rich states (the coastal states along with Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan) are distinctly different from the coal-bearing states (Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Jharkhand etc. being examples). Madhya Pradesh is the only state common to both the lists.

Also Read: Etrio partners Kosher Climate to create carbon credit framework for electric three-wheelers

Moving away from coal has other ramifications as well which would adversely affect the underprivileged and some obvious instances are being cited. First, the states earn a huge amount of money through royalties on account of coal mining, and in the year 2021-22, the total royalty payments were nearly Rs 14,000 crore. The major beneficiaries were Jharkhand (Rs 3,623 crore), Madhya Pradesh (Rs 2,709 crore), Odisha (Rs 2,700 crore), and Chhattisgarh (Rs 2,386 crore). By moving away from coal, there is going to be a loss of revenue to the states which will affect their development budget which will, in turn, affect the poorer sections first. Second, one can see the case of the Railways, as coal is their biggest revenue earner. The freight -to-fare ratio is one of the highest in India and the Railways use the revenue earned through coal transportation to cross-subsidise passenger fares of the class frequented by relatively poorer travellers. If revenue earned through coal transportation goes down progressively, the extent of subsidisation of passenger fares of lower classes may also go down. Third, one of the important instruments for curbing use of fossil fuels is imposition of carbon taxes, that will raise the price of energy and hence basic necessities. This will adversely affect the poorer sections more because they spend a higher proportion of their income on fuel and necessities.

One has heard of the principle of ‘polluter pays’, but this is clearly missing when it comes to carbon emissions. While dealing with emissions, one realises that people who pollute less are paying a heavier price. For example, the developing countries are paying the price for what the developed world has done in the past with no tangible transfer of financial resources or technology. Further, within countries, the richest 10% are responsible for 34-45% of global emissions and the bottom half contributes only 13-15% (IPCC 2012). It’s the poor who are first affected by the manifestations of climate change, be it drought or excess rain or floods, loss of land due to swelling oceans, food scarcity, and spread of epidemics etc. So clearly, we need to carefully plan our march to a fossil-free world so as to ensure that equity between the ‘haves and have-nots’ is not violated.

The author is Senior visiting fellow, ICRIER 

Views are personal