While awareness and concern about the effects of climate change has increased dramatically in the past few months in India, there is no real support for what’s seen as a rich-driven agenda to reverse this. In fact, in an intellectual establishment with old paradigms of rich versus poor and developing versus developed well entrenched, there is remarkable – sometimes-scary – unanimity on this issue. People in India acknowledge that a monsoon-dependent (and still largely agrarian) society is severely threatened by the effects of climate change. But there is also near unanimity that the causes of the problem, as well its remedy, lie elsewhere.
In a society where it is difficult to find two commentators or experts who agree on anything, climate change is one issue on which one can scarcely find an alternative opinion. The only slightly nuanced position comes from some environmental NGOs who, while acknowledging the broader rich polluter versus poor victim view, also say that countries like India, China and Brazil also have to start getting their own act together. But they remain a very small minority.
For this reason, within the political and intellectual establishment, there is tremendous support for the joint front put up by the group of 77 at the United Nations to question the idea of climate change being discussed at the Security Council. The group’s display of solidarity, led by Pakistan, underlines the strength of its sentiment.
In the foreseeable future, one only sees rising concerns on climate change widening the distance between "us" and "them." The developed economies' (particularly America's) betrayal of Kyoto commitments is a very strong irritant. Countries like India resent being asked to spend enormous amounts of money or to slow down their economic growth merely to balance out the more prosperous who produce enormously more emissions in total as well as per capita. For example, while India may have now entered the dubious group of ten topmost emitters, it still takes pride in managing an 8% rate of economic growth with 3.7% increase in energy consumption. Further growth will require more energy and there is no way India is willing to compromise on that given its very low per capita use, by international standards.
This December when Nick Stern presented a summary of his review showing the economic impact of climate change, India responded with a paper by its own economists to "show" that there is no need for the country to agree to any binding emission standards and that its focus must remain on achieving domestic goals like eradicating poverty. India also told Stern that unless there is adequate compensation, India would lose significantly in GDP growth if it accepted any binding targets.
Indian leaders and experts also point out that the mechanisms supposedly set up to help countries like India, such as the UN Adaptation Fund or clean tech transfers, have remained non-starters.
Behind all this detail, however, lies the sentiment that the rich have used as much energy as they wanted to acquire economic dominance and now they want to throttle the aspiring states like India, China and Brazil while they make no compromise, pay no price, make no sacrifice. Therefore, from where I sit, I really do not see the two positions converging in the foreseeable future. If anything, I see the distance – and resentment and suspicion –only growing.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
