Developing Responsibility

The G-8 climate action agenda calling for 80 per cent reduction in emission by 2050 has been rightly criticised as mere hot air. Without any specific short-term targets or a roadmap to get there, lofty declarations like the one made in L’Aquila could end up as ineffective as the Kyoto Protocol. The only concrete ‘achievement’ of the G-8 was its commitment to keep mean temperature under two degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels — essential to prevent irreversible disruption of the global climate system.

While G-8 officials were congratulating themselves for reaching an agreement over emission cuts by 2050, earth scientists were looking at the alarming satellite images of Arctic ice that has shrunk considerably in the past four years. Nasa scientists, in a recent article, have said that a recovery in the thickness of perennial Arctic ice was unlikely. The impact of this upon climate and sea levels could be unpredictable.

The other G-8 ‘achievement’ — in setting a two-degree warming target — would still spell disaster for developing nations dependent on rain-fed agriculture. Governments are coy about spelling out what such a rise in temperature might mean for countries’ food supplies. Columnist Gwenn Dyer, quoting an unpublished study by an Indian think tank on behalf of the World Bank, concluded that at a two-degree Celsius increase, India’s agricultural production would fall by a whopping 25 per cent. If this estimate is even half accurate, it still underscores the urgency of adopting mitigating policies. However morally just (after all the current climate crisis is largely the doing of industrialised nations), the refusal of developing countries to join in a global effort amounts to shirking their responsibility as co-managers of the planet.

Developing countries bear the heavy responsibility of lifting their millions out of poverty, and right now it can only come with burning fossil fuel causing global warming. The responsibility of finding a way out of this conundrum lies mostly with the developed nations, but developing countries cannot hide behind the argument of the West’s historical responsibility. Need for change in developmental policies and technological innovations are obvious, but it is much harder to bring fundamental changes in basic values and a reconsideration of notions of state sovereignty.

At a recent Tallberg Forum in Sweden, interestingly titled as ‘How on earth can we live together’, former Costa Rican President José-Maria Figueres summed up the response needed to face the multifarious challenges as “three decouplings”.

Firstly, decouple growth from carbon emissions. Contrary to the common belief that reducing carbon emission is a costly undertaking, significant gains can be made through efficient use of energy. The development of renewable energy and associated technologies also opens up good business opportunities while mitigating the effects of climate change.

The second decoupling is essentially for developed countries. “We have to decouple our personal satisfaction from over-consumption,” he said, pointing to the carbon cost of excessive consumption of natural resources by the developed world. “In our world today, one billion people over-consume and are wasteful, and six billion people do not have enough.”

The third challenge is to “decouple our political and democratic participation from the context of the nation state”. This is, of course, the toughest challenge. Voters elect their leaders on their promise of delivering welfare exclusively to them, not to other regions. Yet, given the close integration and interdependence of the world, Figueres says, “We need to understand that the governments that we elect at local, regional and national levels are ever more members of a global community of governments that need to coordinate actions amongst themselves so that we all can live better lives.”

However logical, Figueres’ call for the election of partners in a global government will inevitably be met with yawns. The timidity of the G-8 leaders in refusing to provide a medium-term target is a clear evidence of their myopic focus on electoral support back home. Vague promises to cut emissions in the future satisfies their global posturing without incurring any political cost.

Meanwhile, global temperatures continue to rise and the glaciers continue to shrink. Mother Nature was quite clearly not a signatory at the summit at L’Aquila.

Nayan Chanda is director of publications at the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization and Editor of YaleGlobal Online.