Context

Europe is staring at a recession and its appetite for climate action is waning.

Developed countries moving away from commitment

• Countries in Europe led by Germany, Austria and the Netherlands are cranking up their coal plants again.
• Fossil fuels are making a comeback and countries are rejecting the European Union (EU)’s plan to reduce natural gas consumption by 15%. Dutch, Polish and other European farmers are protesting against emission cuts from agriculture.
• In the U.S. too, the Senate and the Supreme Court have struck blows to climate action.
• And in the U.S. too, prices of fuel started increasing last year, not just this year.
• Fossil fuels are making a quiet comeback, since the strength of the U.S. is its oil and gas industry.
• That is why we have just witnessed a ‘re-calibration’ of U.S. policy towards the Gulf.
• Coal, oil and gas are not going anywhere in the developed world; they are, in fact, making a comeback.
• The West had rushed to draw down on fossil fuels even before technology for renewables were in place.

Global peaking issue

• Article 4 of the Paris Agreement defines ‘Global Peaking’ thus: “In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties.”
• The developed countries, given their historical emissions, will have to peak first.
• That’s why the reference is to ‘global peaking’ and not ‘individual peaking’.
• From this, it logically follows that when developing country parties peak later than developed countries, they will also achieve net zero later than developed countries.
• Consequently, it is the logical conclusion of the Article 4 of the Paris Agreement that when we consider net zero, we should only consider ‘global net zero’ and not ‘individual net zero’ for 2050.
• The statement calls on developed countries to do a net negative on mitigation by 2050 rather than just “net zero”, if they are serious about fighting climate change.
• In effect, the West needs to do a net minus and not just net zero.
• Thanks to the efforts of India, the phrase used in the 2021 summit-level declarations at both G-20 and Quad is ‘global net zero’. We need to build on this understanding.
• India stands as beacon of hope in renewables.
• It is time for all developing countries, especially the small island developing states, to make sure that the developed world doesn’t backslide on its commitments on mitigation yet again.

Way forward for developing countries

• With countries of the developed world almost sure to renege on their 2030 Paris Agreement commitments, countries of the developing world must do everything to hold the countries of the developed world to their commitments.
• The Western nations have already started reinterpreting the Paris Agreement and look to downgrade their commitments.
• The concept of net zero is being cleverly misinterpreted.
•  To bring this to the attention of the Global South, India, China and eight other countries from Africa, Asia and Latin America made a cross-regional statement on ‘global net zero’ on June 7 at the UN on World Environment Day.

Conclusion

COP 27 in Egypt gives us that opportunity to hold their feet to the fire. It is time for the developed world to make net minus pledges. If we don’t collectively push for it, we will be collectively pushed back.

UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

Context

At a time when our planet faces an existential crisis, there is little doubt that we need innovative, scientific and urgent steps to secure humanity’s future.

India’s climate commitment

• We need to act decisively to reach global net-zero, restricting future cumulative emissions to the remaining carbon budget — as COP26 noted — if the rise in temperature is to remain within the limits of the Paris Agreement.
• At COP26, India announced its climate commitments — the “Panchamrit”, including a commitment to reach net-zero by 2070.
• India’s announcement of its net-zero goal is a major step considering that our country is not the cause of global warming.
• Its historical cumulative emissions are a mere 4.37 per cent of the world’s total. 

India’s steps to achieve the targets

[1] India’s renewable energy targets and achievements

• India’s renewable energy targets have steadily become more ambitious, from the 175 GW by 2022 declared at Paris, to 450 GW by 2030 at the UN Climate Summit, and now 500 GW by 2030, announced at COP26.
• India has also announced the target of 50 per cent installed power generation capacity from non-fossil energy sources by 2030, raising the existing target of 40 per cent, which has already been almost achieved.
• Renewable technologies: India will not lag in terms of new cutting-edge renewable technologies and has already announced a Hydrogen Energy Mission for grey and green hydrogen.
• In energy efficiency, the market-based scheme of Perform, Achieve and Trade (PAT) has avoided 92 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions during its first and second cycles.

[2] India’s E-mobility transtion

• FAME: India is accelerating its e-mobility transition with the Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of (Hybrid &) Electric Vehicles Scheme to support the electric vehicle market development and enable its manufacturing ecosystem to achieve self-sustenance.
• Incentives for customers and companies: The government has also announced a slew of incentives for customers and companies to promote e-vehicles.
• Adoption of BS-VI: India leapfrogged from Bharat Stage-IV (BS-IV) to Bharat Stage-VI (BS-VI) emission norms by April 1, 2020.
• Scrapping policy: A voluntary vehicle scrapping policy to phase out old and unfit vehicles now complements these schemes.
• Electrification of railway routes: Indian Railways is charging ahead, targeting the full electrification of all broad-gauge routes by 2023.

[3] Ujjwala Yojana and UJALA

• The Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana has benefitted 88 million households with LPG connections.
• More than 367 million LED bulbs have been distributed under the UJALA scheme, leading to energy savings of more than 47 billion units of electricity per year and a reduction of 38.6 million tonnes of CO2 per year.
• With these and many other initiatives, India has already achieved a reduction of 24 per cent in the emission intensity of its GDP between 2005 and 2016, and is on track to meet its target of 33 to 35 per cent by 2030.

Role of private sector

• Since industries also contribute to GHG emissions, any climate action will need to reduce or offset emissions that emerge from industrial and commercial activity.
• The public and private sectors in India are already playing a key role in meeting the climate challenge, helped by growing customer and investor awareness, as well as increasing regulatory and disclosure requirements.
• Enterprises are well-positioned to not just adapt to but also gain from the low-carbon transition.
• The low-carbon transition challenge is bigger for companies that are largely coal-powered and contribute more than half of our country’s emissions.
• The business fraternity must make the best possible use of this opportunity to invest in climate technologies and expand the use of renewable energy sources.
• The Indian cement industry has taken pioneering measures and achieved one of the biggest sectoral low carbon milestones worldwide.

Way forward

• India’s journey on the low-carbon pathway towards net-zero requires the active participation of all stakeholders.
• Sustainable lifestyles and climate justice are at the core of this journey.

Conclusion

With cooperation from the private sector, India will be able to responsibly use its fair share of the global carbon space and contribute to reaching the global net-zero goal to build a more environmentally sustainable planet.

UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

Context

With current per capita emissions that are less than half the global average, India’s pledge to reach ‘net zero’ emissions by 2070 has cemented India’s credentials as a global leader.

Implication of net-zero by 2070

• The political implication of the date 2070 is that the world should get to ‘net-zero’ by 2050.
• For that, the rich countries will need to do more and step up closer to their share of the carbon budget.
• India’s stand also signals that it will not act under external pressure, as requiring equal treatment is the hallmark of a global power, and will have an impact on other issues.

How focus on coal harms developing countries

• The subject of oil was not touched at COP26, even as automobile emissions are the fastest growing emissions, because it is a defining feature of western civilisation.
• Most abundant source of energy: Coal is the most abundant energy source, essential for base load in electrification, and the production of steel and cement.
• Its use declines after the saturation level of infrastructure is reached.
• Declining role of G-7 in rule setting: That India and China working together forced the G7 to make a retraction has signalled the coming of a world order in which the G7 no longer sets the rules.
• Specific language on finance and adaptation: After 40 years there is more specific language on both finance and adaptation finally recognising that costs and near-term effects of climate change will hit the poorest countries hardest.

Feasibility of the goal of ‘net-zero’ by 2070

• Seeing the challenge in terms of the scale and the speed of the transformation of the energy system assumes that India will follow the pathway of western civilisation.
• Transition to electrification: India is urbanising as it is industrialising, moving directly to electrification, renewable energy and electric vehicles, and a digital economy instead of a focus on the internal combustion engine.
• Most of the infrastructure required has still to be built and automobiles are yet to be bought.
• Investment vs. incurring cost: India will not be replacing current systems and will be making investments, not incurring costs.

Challenge for the West

• The consumption of affluent households both determines and accelerates an increase of emissions of carbon dioxide.
• This is followed by socio-economic factors such as mobility and dwelling size.
• In the West, these drivers have overridden the beneficial effects of changes in technology reflected in the material footprint and related greenhouse-gas emissions.
• The West has yet to come out with a clear strategy of how it will remain within the broad contours of its carbon budget.
• And increasing inequality and a rise of protectionism and trade barriers imposing new standards need to be anticipated.
• This knowledge is essential for national policy as well as the next round of climate negotiations.

Way forward for India

• Climate change has to be addressed by the West by reducing consumption, not just greening it.
• Shifting the consumption pattern: Consumption patterns need to be ‘shifted away from resource and carbon-intensive goods and services, e.g. mobility from cars and aircraft to buses and trains.
• Reducing the carbon intensity: Along with’ reducing demand, resource and carbon intensity of consumption has to decrease, e.g. expanding renewable energy, electrifying cars and public transport and increasing energy and material efficiency’.
• Equal distribution of wealth and affordable energy use: Equally important, will be achieving a’ more equal distribution of wealth with a minimum level of prosperity and affordable energy use for all’, e.g., housing and doing away with biomass for cooking.
• Focused research group: The Government now needs to set up focused research groups for the conceptual frame of sustainable well-being.
• It should analyse the drivers of affluent overconsumption and circulate synthesis of the literature identifying reforms of the economic systems as well as studies that show how much energy we really need for a decent level of well-being.

Role for legislature

• Fundamental duty: After the Stockholm Declaration on the Global Environment, the Constitution was amended in 1976 to include Protection and Improvement of Environment as a fundamental duty.
• Use of provision under Article 253: Parliament used Article 253 to enact the Environment Protection Act to implement the decisions reached at the Stockholm Conference.
• Enabling new set of legislation: The decisions at COP26 enable a new set of legislation around ecological limits, energy and land use, including the efficient distribution and use of electricity, urban design and a statistical system providing inputs for sustainable well-being.

Consider the question “Examine the feasibility of India’s ‘net-zero’ target by 2070, also suggest the way forward for India to achieve the target by focusing on sustainable well being”

Conclusion

For India, in parallel with the infrastructure and clean technology thrust, the focus on a decent living standard leads to behavioural change in the end-use service, such as mobility, shelter and nutrition — for change modifying wasteful trends.

UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

Context

The Glasgow Climate Pact was adopted on Saturday and, as was to be expected, it is a mixed bag of modest achievements and disappointed expectations.

Transition away from fossil fuel

• The Pact is the first clear recognition of the need to transition away from fossil fuels, though the focus was on giving up coal-based power altogether.
• India introduced an amendment at the last moment to replace this phrase with “phase down” and this played negatively with both the advanced as well as a large constituency of developing countries.
• This amendment reportedly came as a result of consultations among India, China, the UK and the US.
• As the largest producer and consumer of coal and coal-based thermal power, it is understandable that China would prefer a gradual reduction rather than total elimination.
• India may have had similar concerns.

Recognition of Adaptation

• There is a welcome recognition of the importance of Adaptation and there is a commitment to double the current finance available for this to developing countries.
• Since this amount is currently only $15 billion, doubling will mean $ 30 billion.
• This remains grossly inadequate.
• According to UNEP, adaptation costs for developing countries are currently estimated at $70 billion annually and will rise to an estimated $130-300 billion annually by 2030.
• A start is being made in formulating an adaptation plan and this puts the issue firmly on the Climate agenda, balancing the overwhelming focus hitherto on mitigation.

Disappointment on the issue of finance

• The Paris Agreement target of $100 billion per annum between 2005-2020 was never met with the shortfall being more than half, according to some calculations.
• There is now a renewed commitment to delivering on this pledge in the 2020-2025 period and there is a promise of an enhanced flow thereafter.
• But in a post-pandemic global economic slowdown, it is unlikely these promises will be met.
• In any event, it is unlikely that India will get even a small slice of the pie.
• The same applies to the issue of compensation for loss and damage for developing countries who have suffered as a result of climate change for which they have not been responsible.

Initiatives on methane and deforestation

• Two important plurilateral outcomes could potentially develop into more substantial measures.
• The most important is an agreement among 100 countries to cut methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030.
• India is not a part of this group.
• Cutting methane emissions, which is generated mainly by livestock, is certainly useful but there is a much bigger methane emergency around the corner as the earth’s permafrost areas in Siberia, Greenland and the Arctic littoral begin to melt due to global warming that has already taken place and will continue to take place in the coming years.
• Another group of 100 countries has agreed to begin to reverse deforestation by 2030.
• India did not join the group due to concerns over a clause on possible trade measures related to forest products.

Implications of US-China Joint Declaration on Climate Change for India

• Declaration was a departure for China, which had held that bilateral cooperation on climate change could not be insulated from other aspects of their relations.
• The declaration implies a shift in China’s hardline position.
• It appears both countries are moving towards a less confrontational, more cooperative relationship overall.
• This will have geopolitical implications, including for India, which may find its room for manoeuvre shrinking.

Conclusion

As in the past, the can has been kicked down the road, except that the climate road is fast approaching a dead-end. What provides a glimmer of light is the incredible and passionate advocacy of urgent action by young people across the world. This is putting enormous pressure on governments and leaders and if sustained, may become irresistible.

UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

Context

India joined the other G20 countries in making a “net-zero” commitment, setting 2070 as its target year.

Why was it important to sign up for net-zero?

• India’s topography — its 7,000 km-long coastline, the Himalayan glaciers in the north, and its rich forest areas which house natural resources like coal and iron ore — make the country uniquely vulnerable to climate change.
• An IMF study suggests that if emissions continue to rise this century, India’s real GDP per capita could fall by 10 per cent by 2100.
• India’s traditional position has been that since its per capita energy use is only a third of the global average, and it needs to continue to grow to fight poverty, costly energy reduction targets should not be applied to it.

Opportunities presented by India’s net-zero approach

•  It could give a clear signal of India’s intentions and provide better access to international technology, funding and markets.
• We estimate that 60 per cent of India’s capital stock — factories and buildings that will exist in 2040 — is yet to be built.
• The country can potentially leapfrog into new green technology, rather than being overburdened with “re-fitting” obligations.
• If India can now transition to green growth, it could create a more responsible and sustainable economy.
• If India’s exports achieve a “green stamp”, they may find better market access, especially if the world imposes a carbon tax on exports.
• Around 2-2.5 million additional jobs can be created in the renewables sector by 2050, taking the total number of people employed there to over 3 million.

Challenges

• The finances of power distribution companies need to be improved to fund the grid upgrades necessary for scaling up renewables.
• India needs a coordinated institutional framework that can help overcome multiple levels of complexity like federalism, fiscal constraints and bureaucracy.
• The energy investment requirement will be high, rising from about $70-80 billion per year now to $160 billion per year.
•  While the private sector will be required to fund much of this, the government can play a pivotal role, especially in the early days.
• The transition years will be bumpy.
• Inflation could be volatile till renewables reached their full potential.

Conclusion

India is on the right track but needs to redouble its efforts to remove the obstacles.

UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

Context

The recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made it clear that limiting the increase in the world’s average temperature from pre-industrial levels to those agreed in the Paris Agreement requires global cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide to be capped at the global carbon budget.

Understanding why reaching net zero by itself is irrelevant to forestalling dangerous warming

• The promise of when you will turn off the tap does not guarantee that you will draw only a specified quantity of water.
• The top three emitters of the world — China, the U.S. and the European Union — even after taking account of their net zero commitments and their enhanced emission reduction commitments for 2030, will emit more than 500 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide before net zero.
• These three alone will exceed the limit of about 500 billion tonnes from 2020 onwards, for even odds of keeping global temperature increase below 1.5°C.

Issues with ‘net zero’ target

• Neither the Paris Agreement nor climate science requires that net zero be reached individually by countries by 2050, the former requiring only global achievement of this goal “in the second half of the century”.
• Claims that the world “must” reach specific goals by 2030 or 2050 are the product of specific economic models for climate action.
• They front-load emission reduction requirements on developing countries, despite their already low emissions, to allow the developed world to backload its own, buying time for its own transition.
• These stringent limits on future cumulative emissions post 2020, amounting to less than a fifth of the total global carbon budget, is the result of its considerable over-appropriation in the past by the global North.
• Promises of net zero in their current form perpetuate this hugely disproportionate appropriation of a global commons, while continuing to place humanity in harm’s way.

Suggestions for India

• India is responsible for no more than 4.37% cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial era, even though it is home to more than a sixth of humanity.
• India’s per capita emissions are less than half the world average, less than one-eighth of the U.S.’s.
• For India to declare net zero now is to accede to the further over-appropriation of the global carbon budget by a few.
• India’s contribution to global emissions, in both stock and flow, is so disproportionately low that any sacrifice on its part can do nothing to save the world.
• India, in enlightened self-interest, must now stake its claim to a fair share of the global carbon budget.
• Technology transfer and financial support, together with “negative emissions”, if the latter succeeds, can compensate for the loss of the past.
• Such a claim by India provides it greater, and much-needed long-term options.
• It enables the responsible use of coal, its major fossil fuel resource, and oil and gas, to bootstrap itself out of lower-middle-income economy status and eradicate poverty, hunger and malnutrition for good.
• India’s resource-strapped small industries sector needs expansion and modernisation.
• The agriculture sector, the second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions for India after energy, needs to double its productivity and farmers’ incomes and build resilience.
•  Infrastructure for climate resilience in general is critical to future adaptation to climate change.
• All of these will require at least the limited fossil fuel resources made available through a fair share of the carbon budget.

Conclusion

Without restriction of their future cumulative emissions by the big emitters, to their fair share of the global carbon budget, and the corresponding temperature target that they correspond to made clear, India cannot sign on to net zero.

UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

Context

In the run-up to the 26th UNFCCC media reports have claimed that developed countries are inching closer to the target of providing $100 billion annually. This view has been bolstered by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which claimed that climate finance provided by developed countries had reached $78.9 billion in 2018.

Issue of climate financing and claim of reaching the target of $100 billion

• These claims reaching the target of $100 billion annually is erroneous.
• First, the OECD figure includes private finance and export credits.
• Public finance: Developing countries have insisted that developed country climate finance should be from public sources and should be provided as grants or as concessional loans.
• However, the OECD report makes it clear that the public finance component amounted to only $62.2 billion in 2018, with bilateral funding of about $32.7 billion and $29.2 billion through multilateral institutions.
• Nature of finance: Significantly, the final figure comes by adding loans and grants. Of the public finance component, loans comprise 74%, while grants make up only 20%.
• The report does not say how much of the total loan component of $46.3 billion is concessional.
• Non-concessional loans: From 2016 to 2018, 20% of bilateral loans, 76% of loans provided by multilateral development banks and 46% of loans provided by multilateral climate funds were non-concessional.
• Between 2013 and 2018, the share of loans has continued to rise, while the share of grants decreased.
• The OECD reports on climate finance have long been criticised for inflating climate finance figures.
•  In contrast to the OECD report, Oxfam estimates that in 2017-18, out of an average of $59.5 billion of public climate finance reported by developed countries, the climate-specific net assistance ranged only between $19 and $22.5 billion per year.
•  The 2018 Biennial Assessment of UNFCCC’s Standing Committee on Finance reports that on average, developed countries provided only $26 billion per year as climate-specific finance between 2011-2016.

Broken commitments from the US on climate financing

• U.S. President Joe Biden recently said that the U.S. will double its climate finance by $11.4 billion annually by 2024.
• It is Congress that will decide on the quantum after all.
• The U.S. also has a history of broken commitments, having promised $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) under President Barack Obama, but delivering only $1 billion.
• The future focus of U.S. climate finance is the mobilisation of private sector investment.
• The bulk of the money coming in would be through private funds, directed to those projects judged “bankable” and not selected based on developing countries’ priorities and needs.

Finance skews toward mitigation

• Climate finance has also remained skewed towards mitigation, despite the repeated calls for maintaining a balance between adaptation and mitigation.
• The 2016 Adaptation Gap Report of the UN Environment Programme had noted that the annual costs of adaptation in developing countries could range from $140 to $300 billion annually by 2030 and rise to $500 billion by 2050.
• Currently available adaptation finance is significantly lower than the needs expressed in the Nationally Determined Contributions submitted by developing countries.

Conclusion

Delivering on climate finance is fundamental to trust in the multilateral process. Regrettably, while developing countries will continue to pressure developed countries to live up to their promises, the history of climate negotiations is not in their favour.

UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

There are several issues with the adoption of net zero-emission targets. One of the most important being the lack of equity. This article deals with this issue.

About net-zero emission targets

• The “net zero” idea is inspired by an IPCC report that calls for global net emissions – GHG emissions minus removal of GHGs through various means to reach zero by mid-century.
• This builds on a clause in the Paris Climate Agreement, calling for a balance between sources and sinks of emissions by the second half of the century.
• It is worth underscoring that none of this implies that each country has to reach net-zero by 2050.
• Net-zero announcements signals a progressive direction of travel and has the apparent merit of presenting a simple and singular benchmark for assessing the performance of a country.

3 Issues with net zero targets

• First, it potentially allows countries to keep emitting today while relying on yet-to-be-developed and costly technologies to absorb emissions tomorrow.
• Second, its focus on long-term targets displaces attention from meaningful short-term actions that are credible and accountable.
• Third., it calls into question concerns of equity and fairness.

Balancing the concerns of developing and developed countries

• The Paris Agreement, while urging global peaking as soon as possible, explicitly recognises that peaking will take longer for developing countries.
• The Paris Agreement calls for achieving balance in developing and developed nation “on the basis of equity” and in the context of “sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty”.
• Therefore, the Paris Agreement does not advocate uptake of net-zero targets across developed and developing countries, as currently being advocated by many countries.
• Rather, the emphasis in the agreement on equity, sustainable development and poverty eradication suggests a thoughtful balancing of responsibilities between developed and developing countries.

Factors India should consider before taking zero-emission target

• Our first nationally determined contribution (NDC) submitted under the Paris Agreement has been rated by observers as compatible with a 2 degrees Celsius trajectory.
• We are ahead of schedule in meeting our contribution.
• Now, India will need to decide whether to join a growing number of countries (over 120 at last count) that have pledged to reach “net zero” emissions by 2050.
• But it is not clear that enhancing mitigation action can definitively deliver net-zero emissions by 2050, given that our emissions are still rising, and our development needs are considerable.
• There is a possibility that a not fully thought-through mid-century net-zero target would compromise sustainable development.
• Moreover, such a major shift in our negotiating position will have implications for the future, including our ability to leverage additional finance and technology to help shift to low-carbon development pathways.
• Our 2 degrees Celsius compatible NDC, bolstered by the Prime Minister’s announcement in 2019 that we would achieve 450 GW of renewables by 2030, could be strengthened.
• Building on this track record suggests an alternate and equally, if not more, compelling, way to indicate climate ambition in the future than uncritically taking on a net-zero target.

Way forward

• We would benefit from taking stock of our actions and focusing on near-term transitions.
• This will allow us to meet and even over-comply with our 2030 target while also ensuring concomitant developmental benefits, such as developing a vibrant renewable industry.
• We can start putting in place the policies and institutions necessary to move us in the right direction for the longer-term and also better understand the implications of net-zero scenarios before making a net-zero pledge.
• It would also be in India’s interest to link any future pledge to the achievement of near-term action by industrialised countries.
• That would be fair and consistent with the principles of the UNFCCC.

Consider the question “Growing number of countries have been setting net-zero emission target. In light of this, examine the issues India should consider before setting itself the net zero emission targets.”

Conclusion

India, like others, have a responsibility to the international community, we also have a responsibility to our citizens to be deliberate and thoughtful about a decision as consequential as India’s climate pledge.

The article discusses issues such as China’s changing stance, climate finance and adoption of targets.

The 26th COP to the UNFCCC

• Countries Across the world are gearing up for the 26th Conference of Parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
• At the forthcoming COP countries will be expected to increase the nationally determined commitments they made as part of that agreement.
• Those original commitments would put the planet on track towards a 3 degrees centigrade temperature rise by the end of the current millennium.
• 3-degree centigrade is far beyond the 1.5-degree limit that science considers to be a relatively safe threshold.

Countries declaring carbon neutrality targets

• The European Union (EU), the UK, Japan and South Korea have announced more ambitious targets.
• The EU and the UK have pledged to reduce their carbon emissions by 55 per cent in 2030 with 2000 as the base year
• They have also pledged to achieve “carbon neutrality” or zero carbon emissions by 2050.
• China has announced that it will achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 and this has been welcomed by other major economies.

Delinking from China

• It is anticipated that the Biden administration may engage with China to come up with a template for COP-26.
• That template did not take into account India’s interests despite China being part of the BASIC group of Brazil, South Africa, China and India.
• BASIC, as major emerging economies, had been taking coordinated positions at multilateral climate negotiations.
• Going forward, India must delink itself from China, let BASIC become a consultative forum only and reconstruct a larger coalition of developing countries whose climate change goals are more aligned with its own.
• After Paris, BASIC has lost whatever rationale it originally possessed.

Course of action for India: Adaptation is the key

• There will be some important international conferences before COP-26, where major efforts are expected to set down an agenda for that meeting.
• Biden has called for a summit of major emitting nations on April 22.
• In June there will be a G-7 summit of western countries and Japan to which India has been invited.
• The UK has let it be known that climate change would be at the top of the summit agenda.
• What should India’s stance be at these meetings?
• Both for India and other developing countries, it is important that mitigation does not overshadow other key elements of the Paris Climate agreement.
• There has been step-motherly treatment of adaptation, which is a bigger challenge for most developing countries than mitigation is.
• Adaptation should have equal billing with mitigation whenever and wherever climate change action is being deliberated upon.
• India may find itself under pressure to commit to decisions that limit rather than enhance its development prospects.
• One should not yield to pressures to declare a peaking year for India’s carbon emissions or to follow China into declaring a target year for carbon neutrality.
• There is a relentless effort by the US and Western European countries to include climate change on the UN Security Council (UNSC) agenda.
• At a recent UNSC meeting, this was strongly opposed by Russia and by India.
• We will need to work out a persuasive case for opposing it since a large number of countries seem to believe that climate change is indeed a security issue and needs to be treated as such.
• The potentially menacing intent behind it should be exposed.

Climate finance falling short

• The developed countries had committed themselves to providing $100 billion a year in climate finance to developing countries up to 2020.
• There was a pledge to increase the size of this funding significantly in the period 2021-2025.
• Even by the very accommodative accounting methods used by the OECD, the actual flows have fallen far short, being only $79 billion in 2018.
•  Our own ministry of finance has estimated that there has been only a billion dollars in new and additional finance transferred to developing countries annually against the $100 billion pledge.
• It is therefore important for India to highlight the finance component.
• This will also enable the mobilisation of other developing countries, in particular small and medium countries and small island developing states.
• These countries look up to India to provide intellectual leadership in a domain that is often quite technical and complex.

Consider the question “What are the factors India should highlight and focus on as it heads to the 26th COP to the UNFCCC?”

Conclusion

It is evident that India needs to fashion a fresh strategy on climate change negotiations to safeguard its interests, contribute to a global climate regime that enhances and does not diminish India’s development prospects and helps the country both to adapt to climate change that is already taking place and to accelerate its transition to a low carbon growth trajectory.

This article by the Ambassador of the European Union underscores the need for implementation and action on the commitments made in the Paris Agreement to deal with climate change.

EU’s commitment to implement Paris Agreement

• In December 2019, the European Commission launched the European Green Deal — roadmap to achieve climate neutrality in the EU by 2050.
•  “Next Generation EU” recovery package and our next long-term budget earmark more than half a trillion euros to address climate change.
• Recently  EU leaders unanimously agreed on the 2030 target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% compared to 1990 levels.

Impact on low carbon technologies

• These actions and commitments of the EU towards Paris Agreement will further bring down the costs of low carbon technologies.
• The cost of solar photovoltaics has already declined by 82% between 2010 and 2019.
• Achieving the 55% target will even help us to save €100 billion in the next decade and up to €3 trillion by 2050.

EU working with India on climate actions

• No government can tackle climate change alone.
•  India is a key player in this global endeavour.
• The rapid development of solar and wind energy in India in the last few years is a good example of the action needed worldwide.
• India has taken a number of very significant flagship initiatives such as the International Solar Alliance, the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure and the Leadership Group for Industry Transition.
• India and Team Europe are engaged to make a success of the forthcoming international gatherings: COP 26 in Glasgow on climate change and COP 15 in Kunming on biodiversity.

Way forward

• The international community should come forward with clear strategies for net-zero emissions and to enhance the global level of ambition for 2030.
• Our global, regional, national, local and individual recovery plans are an opportunity to ‘build back better’.
• We will also need to foster small individual actions to attain a big collective impact.

Conclusion

With climate neutrality as our goal, the world should mobilise its best scientists, business people, policymakers, academics, civil society actors and citizens to protect together something we all share beyond borders and species: our planet.

The article highlights the fact that the provisions of the Paris Agreement would not be enough to avert the catastrophic and irreversible changes resulting from the global emissions. 

Past efforts for environmental protection

• The most hopeful time for global cooperation in protection of the planet was between the time of the Stockholm Conference (1972) and the time of the Rio Conference (1992).
•  Scientific evidence about role anthropogenic emission in global warming led to political initiatives to harmonise development and environment.
• The historic consensus in Rio led to the adoption of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC).
• A distinction was made between the “luxury emissions” of the developed countries and the survival emissions of the developed countries, which were allowed to increase.
• Moreover, a huge financial package was approved to develop environment-friendly technologies in developing countries.

Copenhagen Accord: Abandonment of Rio Principles

• After the adoption of UNFCC, Conference of the Parties was held in Berlin in 1995 where developed countries backed off from their commitments.
• Though the G-77 was split, the Rio principles were maintained.
• The Kyoto Protocol enshrined the Rio principles.
• It fixed emission targets for developed countries and a complex set of provisions was included to satisfy their interests.
• The end of the Kyoto Protocol and the abandonment of the spirit of the Rio principles were reflected in the Copenhagen Accord (2009).
• Argument given was that a global climate action plan would be possible only if all reductions of the greenhouse gases were made voluntary.

Paris Agreement: Making emission reduction voluntary

• The Paris Agreement moved away from the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
• All countries were placed on an equal footing by making reduction of greenhouse gas emissions voluntary.
• It requires all parties to put forward their best efforts through nationally determined contributions (NDCs)

Shortcomings in Paris Agreement

• The NDCs so far submitted will not result in the desired objective of limiting increase of global warming to below 2°C.
• The Paris Agreement requires that all countries — rich, poor, developed, and developing — slash greenhouse gas emissions.
• But no language is included on the commitments the countries should make.
• Nations can voluntarily set their emissions targets and incur no penalties for falling short of their targets.
•  Further temperature rise, even of 1.5°C, may result in catastrophic and irreversible changes.
• Even a 1°C hotter planet is not a steady state, says a report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Conclusion

The IPCC report acknowledges that “the pathways to avoiding an even hotter world would require a swift and complete transformation not just of the global economy but of society too”. This will only be possible if the world rejects nationalism and parochialism and adopts collaborative responses to the crisis. The Paris Agreement falls short of that imperative.