India has to realise that the 1.5oC target is now totally sacrosanct. This would require persuasion by stakeholders of national Governments to adopt effective measures
The Conference of the Parties (COP) with its 24th session as a part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) took place in Katowice, Poland, in December 2018. Particularly relevant was the fact that Katowice is located at the very heart of Poland’s coal resources and this source of energy provides Poland with about 80 per cent of the country’s electricity supply. Clearly, this is in sharp contrast with the direction that is required to mitigate climate change by phasing out fossil fuels.
The Polish leadership has been emphasising for some time now what it calls a “just transition.” At another level, an unfortunate development, which goes counter to the science of climate change, is the obstruction of the delegations from the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Kuwait in questioning the special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which clearly maps out the science behind accepting the limit of 1.5oC by the end of this century as opposed to 2.0oC, which had tentatively been decided during the Paris Agreement on Climate Change in 2015. As the special report clearly shows the impacts and risks associated with the range between average temperatures that cover 1.5oC to those at 2.0oC are quite significant. Risks associated with the 2.0oC limit are, therefore, considerably higher than those at 1.5oC.
As a result there would be several vulnerable regions and communities across the globe which would suffer the negative consequences of these impacts and risks. In fact, it is now obvious that extreme events related to heat waves, extreme precipitation events, extreme sea level rise related events and the damage carried out by hurricanes and cyclones is on the increase in frequency and intensity across the globe. This reality has to be seen against the well-established principle of “common but differentiated responsibility” because it indicates insensitivity on the part of countries which are primarily responsible for increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases historically while the most vulnerable societies in the world are the ones who have had no responsibility whatsoever in contributing to the emissions and concentration of GHGs in the past.
The one outcome of Katowice which can be treated as a contribution to the efforts in dealing with climate change is what is referred to as the Paris Rule Book. Essentially this is truly an operating manual which is required for implementation of the Paris Agreement. There are a number of technical and socio-political issues included in this rule book such as how countries are required to report their GHG emissions as well as contributions to climate finance.
It also lays down clear-cut rules on voluntary market mechanisms such as carbon trading. This rule book was the subject of considerable discussion and contention between specific countries. The homework for this was actually carried out on the basis of a large meeting in Bangkok, Thailand which was held in September 2018, but that conference failed to reach agreement on the subject, and thus took up time at the COP in Katowice. Overall this resulted in a substantial effort being put in at Katowice on the technical and the other details for coming up with an acceptable system. It almost seems that in a rush to reach agreement in Paris in 2015 the rule book was postponed for finalising subsequently. Some policy makers and analysts actually question whether this could have been done before the Paris Agreement, even if the agreement itself was postponed to 2016.
Whatever is required to be done both with the rule book and the Paris Agreement itself, it is particularly important that human society needs to work out an arrangement by which we reach a limit of no more than 1.5oC by the end of the century. One important consideration in this would be the avoidance of an overshoot scenario. In other words, it would be wrong to suggest that the world could exceed 1.5oC and then this could be brought down quickly through technologies, structural changes and human behaviour by the end of the century. Such overshoot scenarios would create serious impacts and risks, which today’s younger generation would find totally unacceptable. Also the feasibility of descending below an overshoot scenario is questionable, because the technological challenges and institutional responses in that case could prove to be insurmountable.
India has to realise, like the other countries of the world, that whatever may happen, the 1.5oC target is now totally sacrosanct. As a democracy, a society dedicated to sustainable development and a country with a large percentage of youth — who would face the risks of climate change — we have every reason to induce, encourage and motivate every country in the world to mitigate emissions of GHGs. This, of course, would require the persuasion by many stakeholders of national governments to adopt policies and measures which are totally effective. A case in point would be that of Germany where its programme “Energiewende” has been a remarkable case of energy transformation, despite the fact that Germany is completely at the bottom of list in renewable energy resources. China is also making great strides, and it would also help us greatly to join hands with that nation.
A move towards a fossil fuel-free world is the new diplomacy that India needs to practise. Diplomats do not necessarily have to lose their traditional base; in order to do so, apart from going around the cocktail circuit, they need to push mitigation actions which are totally in the interest of India and certainly in the interest of this planet and the species which live on it. What we need, therefore, is a blending of domestic actions with a huge step up in diplomatic relations by which India is at the centre of promoting a sustainable society, however challenging and difficult that might be. That incidentally is also the direction in which trade will expand, and we would do well to build on these opportunities ahead.
(The writer is former chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2002-15)
