India could have done much more in Glasgow

For us, the saddest part of the whole affair has been the controversy India has sparked at the end of negotiations by taking upon itself the responsibility of pushing for a watering down of the final agreement. Although China and the US had higher stakes, we took the lead

- Our vulnerability to climate change should have inspired us to push for a strong climate action policy

- The Indian position appeared to be against the supposed consensus of the conference

- The impatience with which India took upon itself the responsibility of leading the deceleration of climate action was not required

- The US-China declaration also does not have any new commitments on emissions

EVEN before the negotiations had started, Swedish activist Greta Thunberg looked pessimistic and called the Glasgow Climate Change Conference a failure. But the outcome of the conference proved her right. When Alok Sharma, the British Minister, and COP26 President, expressed his deep regret for the events that led to a weaker agreement on abandoning coal as a source of energy in the near future, he was indirectly endorsing her point of view.

Though participant countries, including the host, the UK, claimed success to dispel disappointment over a weak agreement on carbon emissions, the conference failed to agree on solid commitments to cut emissions. The current rate of effort is insufficient to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels in the twenty-first century. The ambition of limiting the rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius has just gone beyond our reach.

For us, the saddest part of the whole affair has been the controversy India has sparked at the end of negotiations by taking upon itself the responsibility of pushing for a watering down of the final agreement. Although China and the US had higher stakes, we took the lead. Our share in polluting the earth is far too small to warrant such a proactive role. We are far behind them in emitting carbon. China accounts for 30 per cent of global CO2 emissions, the US for 15 per cent, and India for 7 per cent.

The Indian position also appeared to be against the supposed consensus of the conference. India's push for a change in the final draught from "phasing out" to "phasing down" of coal firepower has been projected as a villainous act, although it had strong backing from China. People are also ignoring the fact that many of the 200 participating countries supported the change. The global media is silent over the origin of the phrase "phasing down." The phrase has its origin in the US-China Joint Glasgow Declaration on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s. The declaration was announced on November 10, when the negotiations were still on. It was a great public relations exercise, and it stole everyone's eyes. It received a lot of appreciation from the participating countries, even though the two countries hardly did anything to affect a drastic cut in their emissions. The much-talked-about cut in the emissions of methane also lacks clear promise. China had already refused to sign a US proposal at the conference to pledge a 30 per cent reduction in methane emissions by 2030.

The US-China declaration also does not have any new commitments on emissions. Two countries have tacitly protected their fossil fuel-based industries by seeking the removal of carbon dioxide from the gas emitted by their power plants. This is very expensive technology and beyond the reach of poor countries.

When China and the US had already blocked the possibility of drastic measures against greenhouse emissions, there was hardly any need for India to come forward to push for a weaker agreement. Some analysts are pointing to domestic pressure. They say that the power industry in India has prevailed upon policymakers to act in this manner. The industry is not ready to phase out coal-based technology. The analysts link government policy to election financing and say that the power plant owners may be donating in a big way through electoral bonds.

The impatience with which India took upon itself the responsibility of leading the deceleration of climate action was not required. However, the global media exaggerated India's actions. It targeted only China and India and underplayed the role of the US and the rest of the countries. The media is propagating a narrative that ignores the historical role of the industrialised world in warming the globe. The US has not been cooperating in the climate talks from the very beginning. The Trump administration even withdrew from the Paris Agreement. The election of Joe Biden to the presidency has certainly brought a change in policy.

Has India lost a bigger role in global politics on the issue? The answer is yes. The country belongs to the region which is to face the worst of the upheavals caused by climate change. Glaciers in the Himalayas are melting, and the pattern of rainfall is changing. We are already witnessing erratic weather conditions in many parts of the country. The recent heavy rain in Tamil Nadu is an example.

Our vulnerability to climate change should have inspired us to push for a strong climate action policy. This is also our larger responsibility towards humanity. Most poor countries, including India, are facing the calamity of climate change without any role in global warming. In the international discourse, the historical aspect of climate change is not finding a proper place. Countries with colonial pasts have every right to ask for compensation. We should emphasise that the European industrial revolution caused global warming and that the West bears a greater share of the responsibility for addressing climate change challenges. India can play a leading role in demanding it. We should have strongly pressed for the implementation of the Paris Agreement on climate financing, which calls for the transfer of 100 billion dollars from developed countries to poor countries through 2025 for adaptation to climate change. We also need to join hands with the poor countries in demanding a proper definition of climate finance.

We also seem to have forgotten the great legacy of Mahatma Gandhi, whose famous quote inspires environmental experts across the world.

"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed." The late RK Pachauri, an Indian scientist and the first chairman of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), firmly believed that the solution lay in the Gandhian path. He advocated for small and green technologies. Can we not follow this path and ask the world to join in?

(Anil Sinha is a senior journalist. He has experience of working with leading newspapers and electronic media including Deccan Herald, Sunday Guardian, Navbharat Times and Dainik Bhaskar. He writes on politics, society, environment and economy)