Keeping civil society at bay hurts climate redressal prospects

The dust may have settled quickly in the US on President Trump’s decision on the Paris Agreement on Climate Change as American citizens now have James Comey’s testimony to deal with. But in other parts of the world including in India, the consequences of the decision are still being debated.  

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has reinstated India’s commitment irrespective of a global agreement. But how can India follow this through? Commentators have argued that with no funds from the US, the climate fund made up of private investments and government support will be too small. India and many other countries were indeed looking to this 100 billion-dollar kitty for improvements in efficiency and new technologies. Now, India will face some difficulty. Nevertheless, we will attempt to show something as our action on this “moral” issue.

Here lies the trouble. Lifting the issue of climate change to a moral status gives the Indian government much greater autonomy to make crucial decisions concerning this unparalleled task of transforming the economy and society. But we still have very little by way of institutional procedures or mechanisms to ensure that decisions taken in the name of climate change mitigation are just and ethical ones. We could look out for three sets of dangers in such a situation.

The first is technology-dumping. Since innovative technologies and funds will be hard to come by, we may find ourselves trapped with old forms that are already discredited in different parts of the world but which have now gained a patina of legitimacy. Nuclear energy is one such example, large hydro is another. The US has decommissioned 72 dams in 2016 alone and nuclear power has been struck off in Germany. The government has listed these as “safe, environmentally benign and economically viable sources to meet the increasing electricity needs”, but the decisions on these projects need to be taken with great caution.

Similarly, waste-to-energy projects are big on India’s mitigation plan. As stated in India’s INDC document, the government has provided Rs 25 billion “as grant in aid to states and Urban Local Bodies” for such projects. Where are these projects going to be set up, and how and whom they will affect are questions that have to be asked before these targets are set out. Once they are on the government’s list, questions tend to be taken as accusations.

The second danger is to pin hopes on the market alone. Many commentators have stated that economic factors have already paved the road towards transformation. The expectation or complacency that we will move to cleaner sources of energy because it makes good economic sense ignores the grasp of “informal politics” on policymaking. Why do coal mining projects get approvals even when thermal power plants have been sitting idle? Why are polluting and violating industries granted licences to operate? Why are coastal environments subject to intensive land-use change even though they protect us from cyclonic storms? None of these are sound investments. Yet, they happen. Rational policies like efficient public transport or climate-friendly housing will create new business losers and beneficiaries. These can be implemented only under popular pressure.

The third danger is excessive antagonism and growing conflict.  Climate change is a problem for both production and distribution. As India tries to realise its commitments, conflicts over land acquisition, forest rights, water use and common property loss will continue or even escalate. To prevent this, the government and civil society will have to work within a framework of deliberative opposition; a relationship that will put all options to question and choose the best. Transparency in plans, intentions and actions will bring legitimacy to decisions. All democratic governments that have committed to fighting climate change have their civil society firmly beside them. We are yet to get there.

The US exit is a disaster, no doubt. But it has given India a historic opportunity not only to face up to a global challenge but also for a deeper form of democracy at home.

The authors are with the CPR-Namati Environment Justice Program