Gone is the taboo of mitigation. In a return to views held and expressed before as minister of commerce, Ramesh said that India needed to rethink its approach to mitigation and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as a duty to its own people and in its own self-interest, not as a result of foreign pressure.
India on the move
He ran through a number of current and planned measures under the Government’s National Action Plan on Climate Change that could reduce emissions by promoting a shift to renewable energy and energy efficiency. Measures that included generating power from clean coal technology, 15-20% of total energy generation from renewable energy (excluding hydro), new efficiency requirements for appliances by 2010, fuel efficiency norms by 2012, reducing emissions from agriculture, and ensuring compliance of public buildings with energy conservation laws by 2012.
All of these were designed to show that India was moving and recognised the importance of reducing emissions as it grew its economy in the years to come to provide development for its people. Ramesh revealed that the government was considering laws on mitigation modelled on the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, domestic legislation that had set a defined band for government deficits. He was apparently reviewing draft legislation which would set broad ‘indicative’ targets, not mandatory targets, for the five most polluting sectors of the Indian economy. This would, he said, amount to India having “a legislative agenda for mitigation which will bring credibility to the actions via domestic political consensus.” The emissions would be quantified and monitored domestically with the resultant figures shared with the rest of the world.
Reversal in government policy
This is a stunning and welcome reversal in government policy. It shows that Ramesh the politician has chosen to lead on this agenda and not be hemmed in by the mandarins and bureaucrats who have long dictated India’s climate policy. This is a bold move that will have to be visibly supported if it is to mark a sustained shift in government policy.
The signs of reform are encouraging. In his first 100 days in office, Ramesh has gone on the front foot with a series of initiatives to improve communication. The GoI’s submissions to the UNFCCC climate negotiations have been bundled into one omnibus document. His ministry has released a report on the role of India’s forests in carbon sequestration – part of the REDD+ offensive. The results of five modelling studies on India’s GHG emissions have been published with a call for the report to spark discussion and debate. Good communication moves and a shift away from the previous closed culture of the ministry.
It is in this context of making good on his promise to be the new broom that sweeps clean that his September 11th remarks should be seen. These were not off the cuff comments. This was a deliberate statement made in presence of the Prime Minister of the host country of this year’s Climate Summit. The message was clear India was in the game and ready to play. It was time to shake off India’s reputation as being negative, defensive and obstructionist in the negotiations. In Ramesh’s words “we are proactive, constructive, we want a fair and equitable agreement in Copenhagen”.
Political significance
The significance of Ramesh’s words are apparent when compared with the long-held official view that countries such as India had no obligation to mitigate or reduce emissions, merely adapt to the impacts of climate change. This took its legitimacy from the Kyoto Protocol that does not require developing countries, unlike developed countries, to undertake mandatory emissions cuts given their development priorities of economic growth and poverty alleviation.
According to the subsequent Bali Action Plan, where mitigation was undertaken by non-Annex I (developing countries) it had to be supported by finance and technology transfer from developed countries. India has cleaved to this position with legal perfection fighting off any suggestion that it may have a national interest in pro-active, mandatory emissions reductions.
An example of this view in action was the Prime Minister’s National Action Plan on Climate Change released last year. Even though it contained mitigation measures that would have long-term economic benefits for the country, politically it was sold as an action plan for adaptation, not for the ‘m’ word. Domestic objections to the Prime Minister’s agreement at L’Aquila in July to G8 language on 2 degrees - interpreted in Delhi as caps on emissions by the back door - reveal India’s political sensitivity to mandatory mitigation targets.
In the country’s gradual evolution from initially rejecting emissions cuts, to grudgingly accepting non-mandatory emissions cuts, Ramesh’s September 11th announcement accepting legally binding national emissions cuts is a major thrust in a new direction. Although there is still no acceptance of legally binding and internationally verified domestic mitigation actions as part of an international treaty, the politics can now change.
The case for early action
India is now the third largest economy in Asia and the world’s fourth largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Energy demand is expected to triple by 2030 as are the country’s GHG emissions. Though per capita emissions remain low, largely as a result of unmet demand from India’s vast and under-served rural poor, there can be no room for complacency. Managing India’s carbon emissions and preventing lock-in to high-carbon intensive infrastructure will be essential to any smart growth strategy in a carbon-constrained world.
According to the five studies on India’s GHG emissions projections released by Ramesh’s ministry, “Even with very aggressive GDP growth over the next two decades, India’s per capita emissions will be well below developed country averages.” The conclusions are good news for the government. The Prime Minister’s promise at the Heiligendamm G8 that India’s per capita emissions will never exceed the OECD average can to be kept.
The more recent McKinsey study of India’s environmental and energy sustainability is more nuanced and provides a different message to the GoI’s selected studies. McKenzie’s analysis makes a strong case for abatement of emissions without compromising India’s growth potential. The study suggests that India could make a step-change in efforts to lower emissions that would cut emissions by up to 50% by 2030 and deliver energy security and development benefits.2030 is the point at which India’s population is likely to be the largest in the world with 1.5 billion people, and the country’s GDP expected to reach USD 4 trillion.
The study notes that 80 percent of the India of 2030 is yet to be built. And this provides the country with an advantage. Unlike industrialized countries, which are already locked into decades of infrastructure and energy investments, India has a unique opportunity to leap-frog inefficient technologies and move more swiftly to an efficient, low-carbon future. None of this will come cheap, however, and the study points to an incremental investment needed of between 1.8 – 2.3 percent GDP between 2010 and 2030.
Importantly, the McKenzie study makes the case for early abatement action to avoid greater costs in the long term. These arguments have been made before. For example the Paris-based IDDri has calculated India could suffer a 15 percent loss in GDP if it delays action on emissions reductions. Most recently, the E3G/Climate Institute’s Index of low-carbon competitiveness has placed India a low 17 out of 19 – just ahead of Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, but behind all the other G5 countries (China, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa). A poor performer, India is given the second lowest score in the early preparation category – partly as a result of carbon intensive electricity being distributed via an inefficient grid.
This story of the risk of economic disadvantage and lack of competitiveness for India in a low-carbon future economy should provide a compelling argument for policymakers to take early action on climate change including binding emissions cuts.
Abrupt climate change
What none of the Indian studies take into account however are climate impacts on the economy and the risk of abrupt climate change. Climate change is not a linear process. For a country as profoundly vulnerable to changes in the monsoon such as India - and its attendant risks for agriculture, food security, and knock-on effects throughout the economy - the benefits of a precautionary approach, both mitigation and adaptation for ‘weatherproofing’, should be evident.
It is this context that Jairam Ramesh’s statement on mitigation assumes great relevance. Although the Minister has firmly ruled out any change in India’s negotiating stance – he calls the new position “per-capita plus” and stresses “We are not going to accept any legally binding commitments on reducing carbon emissions. We will not allow the dilution of the per-capita principle. There can be no compromises on these” - there is now something more on offer from the Indian side.
Clearing the political air
For the first time there is hope that the politics of the negotiations can change. India has brought a new attitude to the table. With atmospherics playing such a key role in the willingness of nations to agree to work together, Ramesh’s positive statement can go a long way to build confidence on all sides. The timing is helpful – with just fifteen negotiating days left till Copenhagen and the UN Climate Summit and G20 round the corner – the statement comes in time to build the necessary political consensus for Copenhagen to deliver.
What we need now is more positive focus. A sustained push for a fair, ambitious and binding agreement at Copenhagen. Less talk of downgrading expectations and looking beyond Copenhagen to 2010. (Messages that have been coming out of both Washington and Delhi recently.)
For his part, Jairam Ramesh has paved the way for more to be expected of India. In so doing he has strengthened India’s hand in demanding that more be done by developed nations. The world needs deep and binding emissions cuts by Annex 1 countries soon. Equally it will need cuts by emerging economies in the future. The penny has dropped in China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa. It can now be heard in Delhi.
