On the 2nd of June India stood up once again to question the science stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one of the top scientific bodies to prove the existence of climate change. And although it sounds ridiculous, if you look deeper into the Indian argument there is some legitimacy. Or so I believe.
Now when we hear that the IPCC science is being challenged, we automatically assume that means that the challenging party thinks that climate change isn’t happening. That is not the case here. India signed off on the IPCC because it accepted the reality of climate change as described by the report.
So what is India challenging?
The IPCC reports, besides only talking about the impacts of climate change, also state a pathway of emissions reductions for developed countries required to limit emissions to a point of 450ppm equivalent. This scenario gives us a 50% chance of avoiding disastrous climate change, defined as a limit to global temperature increase of 2 degrees. The pathway they stated for a 450ppm scenario was that developed countries need to reduce emissions by 25-40% based on 1990 emissions levels by 2020, and a “significant” deviation from business as usual in developing countries.
However since the report being released, some of the scientists, who are a part of the IPCC, last year came out with a study that gave a recommendation for developing countries – to deviate 15-30% below their business as usual scenario. Where did those numbers come from? That is the contentious point for the Indians.
Mr Pradipto Ghosh, one of the Indian delegates referred to the IPCC report saying that “box 13.7 is being quoted by certain countries as a recommendation to burden sharing”. The scenario is something that came out in a study from one set of European researchers. It takes in a range of different studies and comes out with that scenario of deviation from business as usual for developing countries. Burden sharing should be calculated based on historical responsibility and the capacity to pay.
“The IPCC as a body has not endorsed this, but it is talked about this as if it is a recommendation from the IPCC”. And that is what the key thing is to remember – we need to stick to the science.
So you see why I understand where they are coming from?
This should not mean that developing countries are absolved of all duty to not look after their emission levels or to not develop sustainably. India can’t continue on its business as usual trajectory and needs to ensure it doesn’t lock itself into a high carbon development pathway. India understands that they need to look after its emissions. However we must ensure these calculations based on science and equity approved by the IPCC.
The only other point to note is that in the short term it will be easier and cheaper to have developing countries develop sustainably as they haven’t locked themselves into high carbon infrastructure. Hence feasibility is possibly what these numbers have been influenced by.
So India is not questioning the science of climate change, but the science of the specific targets countries are asking the developing countries to take on.
My Question:
Equity vs. feasibility – which way do we go?
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
I beleive that the world collectivly should do something to reduce pollution and when countris like india and america refuse to adhere to global policies it makes my blood boil what is the point of making these global confrences when the largest pollutors refuse to follow
It’s always a tough position to take on this since realistically, developing countries NEED to alter their emissions trajections, or we bake the planet. It’s not as though I take any comfort in saying we need that from countries that are still trying to lift people out of poverty. I also don’t live in a bubble, and I know developed nations are largely responsible for emissions in the atmosphere already. Obviously the developed need to provide a lot of assistance to the developing nations in these emissions reductions. I think this is as fair a stance as we can take while keep in mind that emissions need to be brought under control for all.
Regarding where this new number came from, I would say the IPCC is more conservative than most other scientific acadamies and institutions regarding the devastation of climate change, and quantity of emissions reductions needed. Furthermore, the IPCC report came out in early 2007 and it’s ressearch was collected from a few years before that. The IPCC emissions cuts are out of date. They are not in line with the science already. Since the IPCC report came out, we’ve had emissions grow faster than ever for 2 whole years. If anything the cuts we need are deeper now than they were in that report.
Here is one positive commitment that India appears to be making though
http://madrad2002.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/indias-solar-committment/
As a fellow Indian who has had less-than-fulfulling encounters with Mr. Ghosh (see http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2006/11/02/india-joins-the-asia-pacific-pact) I must respectfully disagree with elements of this post. Matt makes a good point above that the IPCC science is increasingly out of date. Similarly, many of us in the youth climate movement have been pushing for a 350 ppm target, which is based upon NASA’s James Hansen’s papers but is not mentioned in any IPCC documents. The IPCC is certainly an authoritative source on climate science — but it is not the only one, and we would do well to also heed other analyses that urge us to call for for drastic action, while of course taking into consideration equity issues between the developed and developing worlds.
Hi guys,
So to clarify at no point do I feel like India should not deviate from BAU – it must, it cannot grow with the same intensity of emissions that the over-developed world has. And nor am I saying that the 15-30% deviation from BAU is to little or too large.
The point I’m making is not on the targets itself – in terms of whether they’re good or bad. The point I’m making is about the process that was taken to arrive at those figures that is being tossed around with authority. Those deviation figures may be exactly what we need. But it is said that those figures aren’t based purely on historical emissions or financial capability, but created based on the inability/refusal for the global north to reduce the emissions they need to, hence it is put on the global south.
It is unfair if countries take one study and start flouting that number without a rigorous understudy. I mean 5 ngo’s came out with a draft treaty and proposed the emissions level for developing countries and they didn’t talk about the 15-30% BAU deviation either. Whatever has been put on the table needs to be rigorously verified.
And yes I completely agree with outdated science, we shouldn’t even be aiming for 450ppm if we’re advocating for survival, but my article wasn’t around 450ppm or 350ppm, it was around process. Whatever we call science MUST BE SCIENTIFIC and not policy/political.
Hope this clarifies…