JOIN USLack of understanding of climate justice was the problem at Glasgow, says Sunita Narain
The 26th Conference of Parties (CoP26) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Glasgow ended on a disappointing note with the developed world refusing to cut down their own emissions while putting pressure on India to stop using coal, restricting India’s developmental goals. The bitter negotiations created a fissure between the developed and developing blocks, making things complicated for future negotiations. Sunita Narain, the director of Centre for Science and Environment, assesses the CoP26 in an interview with DH's Kalyan Ray. Excerpts:
What’s your assessment of CoP26?
Has the Glasgow Climate Pact succeeded in going far enough to keep the world below a 1.5C temperature rise necessary to ensure that our world can avoid the worst and catastrophic impacts of a changing climate? The answer is a resounding ‘no’. The Pact’s fundamental and fatal flaw is in the very first page — where it says, rather dismissively, that “it notes the importance for some of the concepts of climate justice”. We cannot erase the fact that certain countries — the US, EU-27, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan and Russia and now joined by China — have consumed roughly 70 per cent of the carbon budget, the space in the atmosphere that is available to keep the world below the 1.5C temperature rise. The challenge is that the world has run out of carbon budget, but some 70 per cent of the world’s people still need the right to develop. As these countries grow, they will add emissions and take the world to catastrophic levels of temperature rise. It is for this reason, climate justice is not an add-on concept for some, but the prerequisite for an effective and ambitious agreement. This lack of understanding is at the core of the problem.
Do you think Glasgow has made some progress to whatever was promised in Paris?
I find that the CoP discussions have become so ossified that they just seem to talk to each other without a sense of the crisis and reality around them.
The developed world’s promise of climate funding didn’t materialise so far — what do you have to say?
The Paris Agreement says rich nations must transfer US $100 billion annually through 2025 to developing and poor countries. But the flow of real money is still illusionary; only Germany, Norway and Sweden are paying their share. The final text acknowledges the needs of developing countries for climate finance, and sets out a process to deliver on those needs. The agreed text commits developed countries to double the collective share of adaptation finance within the $100 billion annual target for 2021-2025, and to reach the $100 billion goal as soon as possible. But developed countries resisted defining climate finance, and adding specific language that would communicate an increased contribution over and above the US $100 billion.
What’s your assessment of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s announcement at Glasgow?
It's a very bold and ambitious announcement. India didn’t have to take on a commitment on emission reduction — the one billion tonne reduction between now and 2030. Also we have put out a road map for renewable energy and non-fossil fuel energy. It's a clear indication that we want to transform our energy system, limit coal and expand cleaner sources.
The net-zero target is 50 years away, but the PM announced four short term targets to be reached by 2030. Are these achievable realistically?
The intent is there, but to achieve, we have to be serious about limiting our coal. The energy required for our growth will have to come from cleaner sources. There is no doubt renewable energy is still much more expensive. Currently 80 per cent of India’s electricity is coal based, but we are projecting that with the growth of the energy options, we will limit coal use to 50-60 per cent. Which means that the doubling of energy that is going to happen between now and 2030, will have to happen on alternate sources. The strategy has to be such that we get clean and affordable energy. We have to be serious and determined in managing the Discoms and production of cleaner electricity. We will have to get rid of our old plants and modernise the current fleet. We will have to move the vehicles to electric and public transport. It requires a kind of obsession and game plan. We can think out of the box today as we haven’t built all our energy sources. This is not an option to the rest of the world.
Out of the four targets that the PM had set, which one is the most challenging:
The most challenging would be energy transformation. That’s the key to everything. All over the world, it's the energy that is the cause of global warming. If you transform your energy system, your manufacturing becomes cleaner.
What are the other industrial sectors that need to change?
Bulk of India’s emission comes from the power sector along with steel, cement, aluminium and fertiliser. The number of industries in each of these sectors is limited. Aluminum has four players, cement has ten players, but they all require a system. That’s where the government will have to say, here is the plan going forward, there are the things that you will do at your cost, these are the things that we will do and these are things we will raise a bill abroad. But we need a clear plan to go ahead.
Do we have adequate resources to transform these sectors?
The first thing is to make a plan on how we get there, what kind of resources are needed, what’s the pathway to get to cleaner energy and industrial sectors and what would it cost. We need to demand from the western countries not only the low hanging fruits, but also the more cost for transformation in more expensive projects, which we can’t afford. The bottom line, however, is that we need to come up with a plan.