Round The World

New Delhi, 28 October 2009

Copenhagen Meet

OVERCOME RICH-POOR DIVIDE

By Monish Tourangbam

(Research Scholar, School of International Studies, JNU)

Climate change and its implications are hardly conspiracy theory. Yet the world gets divided between the developed and the developing countries regarding strategies to combat this man-made problem. Climate change can be combated only when countries- rich and poor, big and small realize that co-operation is the only way out. It is a fight to save the one and only planet that we call home -- the earth.  

However, in the international arena where each country comes with its own set of problems and ways to tackle these, it is stating the obvious to say that cooperation is easier said than done. Different nations in the world are at different levels of growth and thus have different perspectives and narratives on the strategy to fight climate change.

The issue has become a battleground of inflexible parties leading to a stalemate in response to a rapidly deteriorating situation. But, cooperation in this case is not a choice but an inevitable necessity and countries at some point of time have to accept their responsibilities and make compromises in dealing with this imminent danger. Climate change knows no boundaries and hence would not take sides before inflicting damage.

This is an unconventional security threat that has to be dealt with differently. Countries that have got used to flexing their muscles in the pursuit of power and influence have got to swallow their egos and work with the smallest of countries. Speaking at the Observer Research Foundation, a New Delhi-based think tank, Maldives President Mohammad Nasheed commented that climate change was a bigger challenge than international terrorism. In meeting this challenge, nations have to learn to either swim together or drown. In the realm of international relations, the world is often and generally projected as an anarchic environment where self-help is the best recourse to increasing one’s power and prestige. But in tackling climate change, one country’s gain does not necessarily translate into another’s loss and vice-versa. To mitigate the effects of climate change, countries should understand that helping others is actually helping the self.

As such, some amount of selfless help is inevitable more so from the developed nations. These countries are in a position to help the developing countries to resort to greener technology. But it seems that the US, even under the leadership of the Nobel Peace Prize winning President Barrack Obama, and the EU are hardly committed in talking about the transfer of funds and technology to the developing countries.

The developed countries seem adamant on binding the emerging economies to international legal instruments with the stated purpose to ensure results. But the former with their rapid industrialization at an earlier stage have been relatively more responsible for global warming and hence they should make amends and lead the way. In this context, they lack the moral authority to give sermons to the developing countries, such as India that are in crucial stages of their developmental processes and hence need to be assured security of their growth.

They intend to legally internationalize the projected domestic targets of the developing countries before funds are guaranteed. On the other hand, the developing countries want to have a concrete knowledge of the funds and the technologies expected from these countries, so as to plan the scale of their projects.

In fact, in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks, countries like India and China have chosen not to amplify their differences. New Delhi and Beijing have signed an initial five-year pact on climate change before these talks. Both the countries essentially agree that the prerequisite for a successful agreement is a very substantial commitment on mitigation by the developed countries, which calls for a 40 per cent reduction in emissions by them by 2020 with 1990 reference levels.

While at the global talks in Copenhagen, countries will seek to agree on a new pact that will replace the Kyoto Protocal expiring in 2012, the prospects appear dim. Demands and counter-demands made by different groups have jeopardized the chances of a pact acceptable to all. If the same dilly-dallying continues, then whatever new pact comes into being would meet the same fate as the Kyoto Protocol. The US did not sign the Protocol in 1997 because it was unwilling to accept any binding cuts unless developing countries accepted the same.

At a meeting held in L’Aquila, Italy this July, the G8 industrialized nations committed to cutting emissions by 80% by 2050. But, probably fearing domestic criticism they are reluctant on coming up with interim near-future targets for 2020. During the same meeting, the G5 group of emerging economies – Brazil, India, China, Mexico and South Africa – refused to back a specific target for developing countries to cut emissions. At the recently held climate talks in Bangkok, senior G77 leaders staged a walkout from a meeting saying that a future without the Kyoto Protocol could not be discussed. Moreover, the African continent seems to be quite unanimous in rejecting efforts being made to make the Kyoto Protocol redundant.

Over-expectations from a blanket agreement that tries to bring all the nations on board have more chances of being tangled in the messy business of ratifications and denials. Pragmatic and small-scale approaches need to be attempted while countries debate for a more international framework. For instance, countries could look at some form of agreements to conserve forests, which could be instrumental in combating climate change. Forests could effectively serve as natural absorbers of greenhouse gases. It is crucial to invest in harnessing nature’s ability to curb climate change.

The idea is to look at agreements that could be easier to clinch and hence bind the countries involved in cooperative projects. This could ease the atmosphere when these countries come together to talk about other agreements on climate change. Intransigence on the part of both the developed and the developing economies is expected during the winter talks. 

Keeping in mind that the developed economies of the West have been largely responsible for the current state of the atmosphere, the West should definitely mend its ways first. According to a data released by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, carbon dioxide emissions from the US has increased by 20.2  per cent between 1990 and 2007 while developing countries have cut down considerably.

Taking an instance from Hindu mythology, Sita knew exactly where the Laxman Rekha was, but the problem with climate change is that the threshold is not seen to most. The effects of climate change are often seen as some probable events in the distant future. As such, the threshold is often oblivious and when it finally comes, it will be too late to do anything. It might just be a point of no return.

Different parts of the globe are seeing effects of climate change in varying degrees. The leaders who are debating this issue at present may not be the victims of drastic changes expected but the hallmark of humanity is the ability to think for future generations. But, alas! Lobby politics and intransigent national interests take precedence over a threat that will test humanity to its highest limits.--INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)