First world bullies

The Copenhagen conference on climate change has been a miserable failure. It was largely expected that no firm deal would be signed. The advanced developed countries, whose lavish lifestyles over the decades have largely been responsible for overloading the atmosphere with CO2, blocked any chances of a deal.

What finally emerged was a deal in which no commitments were made to cut carbon emissions, only agreeing that temperature rise over this century be restricted to 2oC. The earlier goal of promising a 80 per cent cut in carbon emissions by the developed nations before 2050 was dropped, and only $30 billion in funding to poor countries for adapting to climate change, this rising to $100 billion after 2020 largely through the financial markets rather than as specific country commitments. The political deal clearly failed to meet what was required.

Behind all the jockeying for what to put or not put in a new treaty, lies the uncomfortable truth that the rich, polluting countries don't want to cut carbon emissions that might add a marginal cost to their economies and they don't want to help pay for the other countries efforts to do so either. That is why they wanted to renege on the earlier Kyoto agreement that bound them to cut carbon emission by around 20 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020 and to compensate the poorer countries that are most affected by the changing climate. Instead their emissions have increased, despite their signing binding agreements to cut them.

Yet cutting emissions for the rich is not very difficult. Earlier this year consulting firm McKinsey & Co. prepared a report that showed the United States alone could save $1.2 trillion in energy costs till 2020 by investing $520 billion in improvements like sealing leaky building ducts and replacing inefficient household appliances with new, energy-saving models.

Further savings are easily possible by increasing energy efficiencies in industrial units, automobiles, and power plants. A small change in lifestyles like living with lower home and office temperatures in winter and higher in summer, besides improving public transport systems so that people don't use cars as often, would further cut energy use and carbon emissions.  

The biggest polluters are the US and Australia whose carbon emissions per head are twice those of other advanced countries like Germany and Japan, and 20 times that of India, pointing to wasteful use. They both refused to sign the Kyoto agreement and even in Copenhagen were major spoilers. President Barrack Obama, despite only committing his country to an unverifiable 4 per cent cut from 1990, wanted the substantial voluntary cuts announced by India and China to be monitored and verified by international bodies even though they would not be funded by them. 

India had unilaterally announced a 20 to 25 per cent reduction in carbon intensity for every increase in the country's GDP and China has announced a 40 per cent reduction in such intensity. The Americans and the Europeans want this monitored probably since they themselves have not met binding targets under the Kyoto Protocol. They were meant to cut carbon emission by 20 per cent over 1990 levels by 2020 but in fact these have increased.

This condition was a deal breaker since they knew it would not be accepted because it impinges on the sovereignty of the two Asian giants. Neither has the developed world committed itself to carbon cuts nor has it promised the poorer countries, especially those in Africa, the help they need to deal with climate change, something that has already started adversely affecting that continent. For instance Al Gore has maintained that the drying up of Lake Chad because of scanty rainfall was a major reason for the Darfur conflict in the Sudan. Such violence because of climate change will only increase. 

For the South, which will suffer the most in the coming years, apart from money to cut emissions help is also needed for their people to adapt to the inevitable climate change. McKinsey has estimated that India alone will need over $900 billion over 20 years just to cut emissions. This is just a fraction of what all countries in Africa, South America, and Asia will need, which will add up to much over $200 billion a year.  

The plain fact is that the economies of the rich countries will not suffer much if they have to meet needed targets. The economies of the poorer countries will. But even within developing civilians to there is a need to differentiate between the rich and the poor — between those who have air-conditioning and drive cars, and those who don't even have electricity or bicycles.