Opinion Global warming,local grandstanding

Reality No. 2: Read any document on the subject whether authored by governments,NGOs or scientists and one cannot help but be struck by the commonality of the recommendations. There are of course differences over details,timings and statistics. There is no consensus on issues like the mechanics of carbon trading,taxes and prices; the optimal mix between risk and reward,efficiency and equity; the role of legislative fiat,and of course the paymaster — who should pick up the tab — the industrialised world that is responsible for the crisis, the multilateral agencies like the World Bank’s climate change investment funds and/or the market via avenues like the clean development mechanism?

But there is little or no difference in the recommended future pathway. Almost everyone agrees that the most effective way of containing GHG emissions is to invest in energy efficiency,renewable energy and forestation. A disproportionate quantum of GHGs are emitted from four sectors — power,industry,transport and buildings. They should be subject to efficiency standards and codes. Investment in renewable energy,‘smart’ infrastructure and R&D for clean technologies is a key factor for long term sustainability. Deforestation must be checked and reforestation encouraged. This is of course,an all too simple summary,but the reality is that we know what needs to be done; the roadmap is clear,and the technologies are familiar and accessible.

Reality 3: ‘Politics as usual’ continues to define the dialogue on climate change,no surprise given the shackles of national politics. Thus even though Obama has ‘successfully’ pushed a climate change bill through Congress,he cannot ignore the fact that 212 members voted against the bill not because they had problems over specific clauses but because they still challenged the scientific evidence. Georgia’s Paul Brown,even asserted that climate change was a ‘hoax’ perpetrated on the world by the scientific community. His remarks drew broad applause.

Politics limits the space for ‘out of the box’ initiatives by the developing world too. In India too,the PM has faced criticism for endorsing the goals set at the Major Economic Forum (MEF) to limit the increase in global temperatures to no more than 2ºC above pre-industrial levels and for agreeing to “substantially reduce emissions by 2050”. This endorsement is not a legal commitment; nor does it represent a dilution of our refusal to accept binding limits on emission. All it does is to implicitly acknowledge that India will actively participate in overcoming the global challenge of global warming. The criticism is without substance and yet it has compelled a formal explanation. And most likely it will now straitjacket our delegates at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.

The reality is that while global warming is a crisis that recognises no borders,the political responses have been and are likely to remain strongly ‘bordered’. The divide between the industrialised world and the developing countries does not appear bridgeable.

Subjective Surmise: Against these realities,Copenhagen will most likely conclude with an agreement that reflects the lowest common denominator of consensus. The agreement will contain no doubt some specific action points especially regarding the development and deployment of existing technologies but it will not create the post-Kyoto platform for collaborative initiatives. It will also not have the teeth to push countries and companies off the path of “business as usual”.

The caveat to this surmise is public opinion. Most segments of society are now engaged — some,of course,more than others. Governments have set up specific climate change departments; businesses have entered the phrase into their corporate lexicon; NGOs are active with grassroots technical and public awareness initiatives,and scientists and academics are debating not the issue but statistical and chronological details. In theory this should make it easy to forge a clear and focused collaborative program of next steps. In fact the opposite is the case. This is because each of these different groups continue to view climate change as a discrete problem rather than as a component part of a sustainable future. It is also because public opinion has not been galvanised.

For the man on the street,global warming is an arcane subject — an issue that troubles the intellect but has limited physical or material resonance. The public must now be brought into the discussion. How,is of course,a difficult proposition.

The mathematician Blaise Pascal offered a strong argument for devout behaviour. He said that even if one believed that the existence of God was highly unlikely it was best to act as if He did exist. This is because the ‘finite’ price of such an act would be small compared to the infinite costs of eternal hell fire. The public needs to be reminded of Pascal’s precautionary principle. However abstract the current impact of global warming,people must pay the relatively small price of changing their lifestyles and compelling politicians to move off their politics-as-usual perch,rather than risk the enormous implications for the yet unborn.

The author is chairman of the Shell group in India. Views expressed are personal.