Most people say that Belem, which hosts COP30 multilateral meet, is a spectacularly beautiful place in Brazil. The event marks the 30th edition of a global alliance, which wants to mitigate the effects of Climate Change, and tackle the looming crisis. Predictably, soon after he was elected for a second term, the US President Donald Trump withdrew his country from the 2015 Paris Agreement. He did the same during his first tenure. Nevertheless, the Brazilian event will continue, even as it struggles to find solutions.
Like most institutions, which are either governed directly or indirectly by the United Nations, its future faces challenges. For India, events like COP30 are of extreme importance for various factors. One, they trigger old and haggard arguments about the double standards, and hypocrisy of the West in Climate Change issues. Two, there is the growing pressure from global activists, actively aided and abetted by what I would call the brown sepoys. Three, although India is successful, particularly since the signing of the Paris Agreement, to grow its share of renewable production, and consumption increases rapidly, it faces stark choices.
Despite the successes, the pressures are mounting. In an article, Anurabha Ghosh, a leading activist, wrote, “The time for promises is now over. COP30 must mark the shift from a bank of promises to a bank of actions where delivery not declarations mark progress. Nowhere is this more important than in South Asia, a region on the front lines of clear climate crisis…. For India, climate action is both a necessity and an opportunity…. But for it to succeed, the world must come together through smarter, more inclusive multilateralism.”
Of course, as is the case with global activists, the voice is eloquent, articulate, and passionate. But India’s choices cannot be dictated only by the western or global concerns. For example, take the case of the increasing pressure to reduce the use of thermal energy, or of electricity generated by coal. In contrast, the European nations, which are not openly hostile to the Paris Agreement like the US, adopt a peculiar stance on energy sources. As far as they are concerned, natural gas is good, but coal is dirty, old, and polluting.
It is ironic that gas, like coal, is a fossil fuel, and no matter how one spins it, or liquefies it, gas remains a polluting fuel. One cannot condone the use of one, and condemn the other. Obviously, everyone does not buy the argument. An environmentalist, Sunita Narain of the Center for Science and Environment, pertinently asks: “Why single out coal? Why not natural gas, which is also a fossil fuel, and emits gases that contribute to global warming? I know, I am asking an inconvenient question. But bear with me. I do so, knowing that we need to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions, and fast. But we need clarity on what we are doing and why?”
Now, Narain is not a fan of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, or the ruling regime. She is not a fan of coal, or Trump. When the US president says that Climate Change is a hoax, and a fraud, Narain asks the reasons to single out coal vis-à-vis gas. She is merely harping on the fact that it is unjust, and cruel to impose restrictions on energy use on the third world countries.
Narain has pointed that the average electricity consumption of an American is 36 times that of an average Indian household. Hence, as the Indian economy grows rapidly, emerges as the fastest-growing major economy in the world, millions will walk out of a life of poverty and destitution, and become part of the new aspirational Indian middle-class generation. These are families that have never used a refrigerator, mixer, or microwave oven, forget about a washing machine, dishwasher, or other gadgets. They need electricity, whatever may be the source, and coal is most obvious one in India.
But the brown sepoy of the global activists have other arguments. They want India to give up coal, adopt gas in the interim period, and accelerate the production and use of renewables, and green energy. While this may be a fine argument for the Europeans, and even the US, which have access to gas, it does not suit India. While India sits comfortably vis-à-vis targets for green sources, its energy demand is high. At least for the next decade or so, it cannot give up on coal.
At present, India produces a billion tonnes of coal a year, and imports 200 million tonnes. India has the fifth largest reserves of coal in the world, and half of the power and electricity generated is based on coal. This figure is likely to remain the same till 2030. Hence, it is virtually impossible for India to forsake coal, and choose gas and green sources, if it wishes to maintain high GDP growth. Even if one agrees with the argument, where will the gas come from?
Most of the coal is locally produced, but the country has minimal gas sources. Hence, it will need to import huge quantities every year. Apart from the infrastructure costs, and issues of energy security, it will distort the current account deficit, and balance of payments. Just imagine the dollar value of importing gas equivalent a billion tonnes of coal! No government can take such a decision. It is economic harakiri, and political suicide for a ruling political party.
Well, the next level of argument is that India needs to be a global poster boy, and reduce energy use through efficiency, and efficacy. For example, in heated discussions that the author has had with activists, the latter contend that there is no need to supply electricity to the poor and dark areas by using coal. Let these old, pristine communities live the way they do. Push more welfare schemes, and provide them with social security. Make sure that they get the basic amenities like food and drinking water, apart from healthcare and education, and higher incomes, minus the electricity.
I find it strange. Well, I may not matter, but the Indian policy-makers will need to juggle with this kind of arguments, and activism, which may seem to border on the unusual. This explains why each time a coal mine licence is given, or a thermal plant construction begins, there are waves of protests. But then India cannot afford to let its guard down, and needs to ensure its economic interests. Global activists, and their brown sepoy backers will continue to question.
The author has worked for leading media houses, authored two books, and is now Executive Director, C Voter Foundation; views are personal
