Failure of the Bangkok round of climate change talks illustrates the division between developed and developing nations on the Kyoto Protocol. The agreement - that runs out in 2012 - places emphasis for emission cuts on developed nations. Not surprisingly developing nations want to extend the agreement, maintaining the status quo.
Binding emission agreements
By contrast, developed nations argue that the world has changed since 1997, and a new agreement should force developing nations to accept legally binding emission obligations. India isn't interested, environment minister, Jairam Ramesh said, "We are not obligated to take on legally binding emission reduction targets, it is not on the table as far as India is concerned."
Per-capita carbon emissions
Developing nations argue that industrialised countries should be held responsible. Despite the fact India is set to become the third biggest carbon emitter, per-capita figures appear to support India's stance. This years CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion report published by International Energy Agency shows that in 2007 the US - 5% of world population - generated 20% of world CO2 emissions. India with 17% of world population contributed less than 5%.
Domestic legislation, no global pledge
Ramesh wants to limit the post-Kyoto agreement, demanding that developed nations commit to larger cuts in greenhouse gases. In return he offers to pass domestic legislation championing fuel efficiencies, building standards and renewable energy use. These pledges will be domestic, not promises to the world community. Proposed amendments to the Energy Conservation Act will reduce CO2 emissions by 100 million tones per year, a reduction of 10%.
A dangerous principle
India's position is clear, the country prefers to focus on development, not environment. Emission curbs conflict with economic growth, wealth creation, and poverty reduction. Richer nations are asking India to risk growth and pay attention to issues that they themselves ignored during stages of economic development. Delhi (understandably) feels this is unacceptable.
This is a dangerous principle. Industrialised nations exported pollution to under developed countries, a luxury that India does not have, if pollution is to be caused it will be at home.
In addition, given India's important but unpredictable monsoons, shifts to the world's climate will be felt directly, India's crucial Himalayan glaciers are already under threat. India is more vulnerable than other countries, and remember climate change has been a catalyst for political unrest, and in cases war, consider Darfur.
So while developed nations need to act responsibly, India needs to engage with the process. Stability and long term economic development may depend on it.
Image source - New York Times
Dominic,
Let me be a bit cynical. We can talk about development and we can talk about pollution control as part of the political/economic game or we can talk about their reality. Governments are jockeying to avoid doing anything and others to make as much money as possible from carbon credits.
The reality, on the other hand, is that China and India will do what they can because it is good business to do so. A very profitable major pollution control industry is developing and China and India will be leading players.