“Climate change” and “Climate crisis” are terms being frequently used by the global media. But what does a climate crisis or climate emergency actually signify? How significant is climate emergency at a global scale, and should India declare a climate emergency? We unravel all of these questions in this article. The article looks at global climate negotiations, mainly the Paris declaration at the Conference of Parties (COP) 21 in 2015, and the following turn in climate change mitigation and adaptation policies. I have tried to explore the level of equity (fairness) that exists within global carbon negotiations, and begin with the highly relevant fact that the global temperatures are already rising at an alarming trend owing to the levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) which have accumulated in the atmosphere.
To broaden the scope of understanding in the article, it is essential to delve deeper and understand the basis of climate change policy, and then shift the focus to climate emergency; its associated challenges and prospects. Climate change predictions and policies are based on tolerable limits of GHGs, particularly CO2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations is the body that provides regular assessments of climate change situations, their respective impacts and suggests means for adaptation and mitigation activities. It provides periodic assessment reports for the purpose of the same. The Assessment Report 5 (AR5) which is the most recent one published by the IPCC concludes that cumulative emissions of GHGs are the key indicators in determining the relationship between emission levels and maximum tolerable levels of increase in global temperatures over a definite period of time. There are emission scenarios specified by probability percentage and the respective cumulative emission limits for the globe.
If we look at the idea of the available carbon space, that is the volume of CO2 measured in metric tonnes, that can be emitted within a given time period, so as to restrict global temperature rise above tolerable limits, then the IPCC guidelines have specified fixed limits based on respective targets.
The COP21 in Paris passed a declaration that aims at maintaining the global temperature rise below 2 ÌŠ C above pre-industrial levels while trying to seek a limit of 1.5 ÌŠ C above pre-industrial levels. World leaders all around hailed this as a significant step taken in the direction of avoiding a climate catastrophe. However some inherent flaws and neglect within the declaration make us question the validity of these claims. Three years after the declaration, the current status quo helps us in supporting and strengthening this dissent .
The target of maintaining global temperature rise 1.5 ÌŠ C below pre-industrial levels (with 1850 as the base year) in itself is an extremely improbable target. In an article after the Paris Agreement, Tejal Kanitkar and T Jayaraman have shown how such an idealistic target - which is practically unachievable - deters the global community from taking any action towards meeting it. Following the IPCC guidelines in AR5, if the goal is to restrict temperature rise to 1.5 ÌŠ C with a 50% probability, then the cumulative emission limit stood at 550 billion tonnes of CO2 between 2015 and 2100. It would be shocking to note that a synthesis report released by the UNFCC in 2014, already revealed that the world would emit around 748 billion tonnes of carbon between 2012 and 2030, thereby making even the 50% probability scenario of achieving the 1.5 ÌŠ C target clearly unrealistic and non achievable. The achievable target within the specified ones would be a 66% probability of maintaining temperature rise 2 ÌŠ C below pre industrial levels which allows an emission of 1,000 billion tonnes of CO2 between 2015 and 2100.
However, the foremost drawback of the Paris agreement is in allowing non-binding commitments for countries. The countries were called upon for setting their respective mitigation targets on a voluntary basis, thus deterring the criticality of climate science. The carbon space available on earth is clearly a global common, which has been historically appropriated by developed nations. The non binding nature of the agreement further sanctions this appropriation without addressing concerns for equity raised by the developing nations lobby. Mainly dictated by the USA, the Paris agreement pushed for the inclusion of 1.5 ÌŠ C target, thus sidelined the agenda for adaptation, which is primarily important for developing nations and small island states, which are bound to suffer the wrath of the changing climate much more than developed nations.
If we have a look at climate data from 2016 and 2017, the years following the Paris agreement, we see that the cumulative emission for the US stands at 394.38 billion tonnes of CO2 for the year 2016. In 2017, USA reversed a decade of decline in emissions, mainly owing to weather demands (heating and cooling demands) and low oil prices within the country - a result, clearly of the non binding nature of the agreement. Though USA opted out of Paris, countries like Germany and the UK also reported 89.83 billion tonnes and 76.59 billion tonnes of CO2 being emitted (cumulative) till 2016, clearly making the 1.5 ÌŠ C target absolutely unachievable.
There was a decline in the use of coal within \ developed nations, a 1% drop per year in use of coal by Canada, US and the European Union. However this drop was offshoot by rise in coal use in India, where it rose by 5% per year. The global fossil fuel emission on an average also witnessed a rise, 2017 saw a rise of 1.6% while 2018 saw a rise of 2.7% in release of CO2 from fossil fuels. These statics prove the validity of the concerns raised against the Paris Agreement in terms of its targets and nature; however one important aspect that needs to be discussed in detail before we shift our focus towards the current concerns of climate emergency is the nature of equity within the climate negotiations, and the repercussions this character has for India.
Developing nations particularly suffer while following the Paris declaration, as it has resulted in shrunken carbon space available for these nations to reach their developmental targets. India for example, has seen its CO2 emissions climb by 6.3% between 2017 and 2018 owing to the developmental course it has agreed upon. In an event the country is criticized by the developed nations lobby, this could be read as extremely unjust. Historically the US has had maximum share in the cumulative emission of CO2, with 394.38 billion tonnes of cumulative CO2 emission as of 2016, it has been the highest contributor to global temperature rise. Contrary to this India has only emitted 46.47 billion tonnes of CO2 as of 2016, even lower cumulative emissions are found in extremely underdeveloped nations of Central Africa, like Chad (13.77 million tonnes) and Central African Republic (11.11 million tonnes). Not considering the historical emission trajectory and setting flexible voluntary targets, thus strips these countries of their fare share of the global commons.
It is an attempt by the developed nations to obtain a greater share of carbon space, while dominating and not allowing the development prospects of developing nations to prosper to a full extent. It is also a move in direction of misleading adaptation requirements which will be necessary to actually respond to the higher levels of global temperature rise, which are actually set to exceed the 1.5 ÌŠ C and probably the 2 ÌŠ C above the 1850 levels. Thereby, the developing nations, who have a huge population economically less viable than the developing world, are set to face the wrath that this mismanagement of climate policy will bring upon the globe.
A shade of the approaching climate crisis was exposed by the report on Global Warming that was released by the IPCC on October, 2018. The special report released following the Paris Declaration stated the impacts of a Global Warming of 1.5 ÌŠ C above pre-industrial levels and the corresponding GHG pathways. The report suggests that at the current rate of increase, the global average temperatures are expected to reach 1.5 ÌŠ C above the pre-industrial levels by 2030-2052. It brings to light that in the decade 2006-2015, the global mean surface temperatures were already 0.87 ÌŠ C above the pre-industrial levels. It sent across a frenzy of climate consciousness across the globe, mostly the developed world.
New York on June 27, 2019 declared a state of ‘climate emergency’; with 8.62 million inhabitants, it became the first city in USA to do so. The states of Norway and Sweden had already declared a climate induced emergency. In an ambitious speech on June 30, 2019 the United Nations chief Antonio Guterres urged nations to take urgent action against the climate ‘catastrophe’ and insisted nations to stop building coal plants by 2020, cut greenhouse gas (GHG hereon,) emissions by 45% and make an immediate shift to renewable energy. The elections across Europe in the past month also saw a rise in the vote share of ‘green parties’ thereby suggesting how ‘climate emergency’ is increasingly becoming an imperative issue for voters. Antonio Gueterres quite funnily still insisted on trying to achieve the 1.5 ÌŠ C target in his speech.
In India, the past few months have witnessed fanatical climate events, Chennai facing acute water shortage, Mumbai and Assam being flooded with incessant rains yet again while a part of Maharashtra faced draught and associated crop failures- all at the same time. All of these have led to various organizations and individuals flooding social media, with the demands of government declaration of a climate emergency. But what does a climate emergency stand for?
Ideally, in a climate emergency situation, the local government in an area is expected to make efforts to reduce carbon emissions. In the developed nations, especially ones characterized by faintly populated cities, a climate emergency situation seems promising. However, there exists no legal binding to curbing emissions, even when the local government of an area has declared a climate emergency. To add to it, even though the climate situation is threatening, declaration of an emergency entails no negotiation, as put forward by N. Sai Balaji. The climate emergency and related mobilization pushes for a decadal transition, reduction in energy demands, rebuilding transport systems and transformation in agriculture. Interestingly, or quite sadly for the developing nations, this form of an emergency would push for dominance and market capture by the developed nations.
The climate emergency movements around the developed world and also in developing nations like India have seen massive support from civil society organizations and groups of students from schools and colleges- all coming out in support of avoiding the catastrophe. However, it is depressing to note that this has little effect on governments, mainly in the developed nation states. A working paper by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) reveals that the fossil fuel subsidies climbed from $4.7 trillion in 2015 to a whopping $5.2 trillion in 2017, clearly revealing the results of a non-binding agreement like Paris 2015.
In India, there have been petitions put forward by several citizens’ organizations and student groups which are demanding the government to declare a climate emergency. The petitions, one of which is signed by almost 170,000 people, push for demands to increase the green cover and to try to meet the 1.5 ÌŠ C Paris target. Mostly led by middle class citizens of the country, the petition fails to account for the scientific flaws within the global climate targets, and also fails to recognize the inequity that exists within the same. The impact of reduction in coal usage or changes in forms of agriculture will be increasingly faced by the peasant class and the rural population of India, who also quite depressingly, are the ones who are going to be worst hit by the effects of a changing climate. Therefore pushing for inequitable targets will yield no successful results, and will not aid in solving the climate crisis.
Technologies that transform agriculture or transport systems in a country like India, within such a small span of time would ideally need huge allocation of funds for the shift, and heavier reliance on the developed world. It also induces a shift in attention, from the fund allocation to developing nations towards a more overarching role played by the developed nations. The climate emergency is a unidirectional mobilization led by the developed nations to further their cause and expand their space for negotiations. The push for emergency seems to be following the same direction as other climate negotiations, basing itself within the current economic system and socio-political order. An emergency system would only entail positive results in case it demands concerted global action with proper recognition of historical role and inequity, thereby demanding a change within the system to challenge the inherent inconsistency and mismanagement of global commons.
Image Credit : aier.org
References
Adve, N., & Engineer, M. (2010). Equity and Social Justice in a Finite Carbon World. Economic and Political Weekly , 15-19.
Balaji, N. S. (2019, May 06). Why It's Exclusionary to Talk About a 'Climate Emergency'. Retrieved July 04, 2019, from The Wire: https://thewire.in/environment/why-its-exclusionary-to-talk-about-a-climate-emergency
Byravan, S. (2019, May 15). Facing the climate emergency. Retrieved July 05, 2019, from The Hindu: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/facing-the-climate-emergency/article27130456.ece
Dubash, K. N., Raghunandan, D., Sant, G., & Sreenivas, A. (2013). Indian Climate Change Policy- Exploring a Co-benefits approach. Economic and Political Weekly , 47-61.
Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change. (2018). Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report . IPCC.
Jayaraman, T., & Kanitkar, T. (2016). The Paris Agreement- Deepening the Climate Crisis. Economic and Political Weekly , 10-13.
Jayaraman, T., Kanitkar, T., & D'Souza, M. (2010). Deconstructing the Climate Blame Game. Economic and Political Weekly , 13-15.
Kanitkar, T., Jayaraman, T., D'Souza, M., Purkaystha, P., Raghunandan, D., & Talwar, R. (2009). How Much 'Carbon Space' Do We Have? Physical Constraints on India's Climate Policy and Its Implications. Economic and Political Weekly , 35-46.
Kapur, D., Khosla, R., & Mehta, P. B. (2009). Climate Change: India's Options. Economic and Political Weekly , 34-42.
Spratt, D. (n.d.). Understanding the Climate emergency & local government. Retrieved July 04, 2019, from breakthroughonline.au.org