GS Paper: GS3-18.Conservation, Environmental Pollution and Degradation, Environmental Impact Assessment.

Against the global clamour for the declaration of carbon neutrality, India must consider several factors and their implications. The article highlights these factors.

Countries declaring carbon-neutral
targets

• At the latest count by the non-profit Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), at the beginning of April, 32 countries had declared, in some documented form.
• The impetus for such declarations arises from Article 4.1 of the Paris Agreement.
• It is evident that the balance of emissions and removal of greenhouse gases is not sought on a country-wise basis but for the world as a whole.
• Both developed country governments and civil society outfits commonly state this as an individual commitment by all countries.
• The text of the Paris Agreement clearly indicates, based on considerations of equity and differentiation, that this is a global goal.

2 critical and related issues

• The first is the compatibility of the intent of Article 4.1 and Article 2.
• 1) Is the achievement of carbon neutrality compatible with achieving the 1.5°C or 2°C goals?
• And whether the mid-century carbon neutrality goals of developed countries are compatible with Article 2.2 of the Paris Agreement which focuses on equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

The current pledges fall short of achieving the targets

• Three-way compatibility between temperature goals, carbon neutrality, and equity is not only not guaranteed, but cannot be achieved for the 1.5°C temperature goal at all.
• Even for the 2°C goal, the current pledges are highly inadequate.
• This conclusion is based on the global carbon budget.
• According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report to restrict temperature rise less than 1.5° with 50% world can emit total 480 Giga-tonnes (billion tonnes) of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2eq) from 2018 onwards.
• At the current rate of emissions of about 42 GtCO2eq per year, this budget would be consumed in 12 years.
• To keep within the 480 Gt budget, at a steady linear rate of decline, global carbon neutrality must be reached by 2039.
• For a 50% probability of restricting temperature rise to below 2°C, the world can emit 1,400 GtCO2eq, that provides considerably greater room for manoeuvre.

Emission of the U.S. and Europe

• Emissions in the U.S. peaked in 2005 and have declined at an average rate of 1.1% from then till 2017.
• Even if it did reach net-zero by 2050 at a steady linear rate of reduction, which is unprecedented, its cumulative emissions between 2018 and 2050 would be 106 GtCO2, which is 22% of the total remaining carbon budget for the whole world. [480 GtCO2 total]
• This is so high that unless others reduced emissions at even faster rates, the world would most certainly cross 1.5°C warming.
• Similarly, the European Union, to keep to its fair share of the remaining carbon budget would have to reach net-zero by 2033, with a constant annual reduction in emissions.
• If the EU reaches net-zero only by 2050 it would consume at least 71 GtCO2, well above its fair share.
• Regrettably, a section of the climate policy modelling literature has promoted the illusion that this three-way compatibility is feasible through speculative “negative emissions”
• They have also been promoting the other illusion that not resorting to any serious emissions increase at all is the means to guarantee the successful development of the Third World.

Why India should avoid net neutrality target

• For one, India has to stay focused on development — both as its immediate need as well as its aspirational goal.
• While sustainability is desirable, the question of how low India’s future low-carbon development can be is highly uncertain.
• India’s current low carbon footprint is a consequence of the utter poverty and deprivation of a majority of its population, and not by virtue of sustainability.
• Second, India does not owe a carbon debt to the world for excessive use in the past.
• India’s emissions (not considering land use and land use change and forest-related emissions) are no more than 3.5% of global cumulative emissions prior to 1990 and about 5% since till 2018.
• Any self-sacrificial declaration of carbon neutrality today in the current international scenario would be a wasted gesture reducing the burden of the developed world and transferring it to the backs of the Indian people.

Consider the question “What are the factor India needs to consider about joining the global chorus on carbon neutrality targets.”

Conclusion

India’s approach to eventual net-zero emissions is contingent on deep first world emissions reductions and an adequate and unambiguous global carbon budget. Meanwhile, India must reject any attempt to restrict its options and be led into a low-development trap, based on pseudo-scientific narratives.

The article explains why the net-zero emission targets are unjust for developing countries like India.

Understanding climate justice

• The principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC) based on historical responsibility have been the bedrock of climate actions under the UNFCCC ever since 1992.
• Based on these principles in Paris Agreement, developed countries promised to deliver higher finance commitment by 2025 and a more facilitative technology regime, apart from leading mitigation actions.
• Developing countries agreed to take legal obligation that entails undertaking domestic mitigation measures and reporting on their implementation as part of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC).
• These are also the central pillars on which India’s call for climate justice is premised.

How India is leading by example

• Indian government introduced climate sensitivity in domestic policies.
• Climate sensitivity is reflected in interventions like energy for all, housing for all, health insurance and crop insurance, action like the “Clean India” and “give it up” campaigns, popularising yoga and sustainable lifestyle practices.
• Together, these initiatives ensure climate justice to the vulnerable and poor sections that are worst hit by climate change.
• While the rich were cajoled to move towards sustainable living, the poor were provided with the safety nets to fight climate change.

Addressig 3 aspects of climate justice

• In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle distinguished three forms of justice, namely distributive, commutative and corrective. 
• With the onset of the implementation phase of the Paris Agreement, it would be useful to take stock of how well the global community is addressing these three aspects of justice.

1) Distributive justice

• Distributive justice pertains to how resources should be distributed in terms of principles of equality, equity and merit.
• For climate change, the most important resource is the global carbon space.
• The developed countries continue to corner a lion’s share of the carbon space for their luxurious consumption while they goad developing countries to cut their emissions emanating from even basic needs.
• Therefore, the focus should be on ensuring ambitious climate action by developed countries in the near-term to ensure distributive climate justice.

2) Commutative justice

• In the climate change discourse, commutative justice refers to the honouring of past commitments in good faith.
• The Kyoto Protocol adopted in 1997 was a historic turning point with legally binding targets for industrialised countries to reduce overall GHG emissions.
• However, the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol that commits developed country parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 18 per cent below 1990 levels by the year 2020 only entered into force in December 2020, just one day before its expiry.
• These targets unambitious and grossly inadequate to meet the principal objective of UNFCCC.
• Also, several developed countries backtracked and refused to take on any targets in the second commitment period.
• The developed country delivery of finance, technology transfer, and capacity building support to developing countries is also not up to the mark.
• The fulfilment of these past commitments would be a critical precursor to any enhancement of climate ambition by developing countries.

3) Corrective justice

• Corrective justice pertains to the righting of wrongs.
• Climate justice demands that every individual who is born on this earth has a right to development and dignified living.
• For this, developed countries need to repay the climate debt by shouldering greater mitigation responsibilities and providing finance, technology and capacity-building support.

Consider the question “Why net zero emission targets are considered to be unjust for developing countries?”

Conclusion

So, while many herald the call for net zero by 2050 as a positive signal in avoiding runaway climate breakdown, in reality it delays climate action by developed countries and is being used to evade historical responsibility and transfer burdens to developing countries.