Stern warning

While there will be those who disagree, the issues raised by the Stern Review on climate change are too serious to be ignored, more so since the impact of climate change is already visible—melting glaciers, unseasonal rains, floods, hurricanes, and so on. How such global warming will affect life depends on the increase in temperature levels—according to Stern, there is a 50 per cent chance of a five degree (Celsius) increase in temperatures by the end of the century in a business-as-usual scenario. While it is impossible to say what this will do, it is important to keep in mind that this is the difference in temperatures between now and the last ice age. Even if, the report says, the annual flow of emissions does not increase beyond today’s levels, it could increase temperatures by two degrees by 2035. And, what matters are not the averages but the marginal change in various places—warming may make certain parts of Russia more hospitable, but the impact on places like Bangladesh and India will be quite different. Some studies estimate that the loss of agricultural produce in India by that period could vary between 9 and 25 percentage points.

It is obvious, and this is the Indian stance, that since the developing countries are only marginally responsible for the current stock of carbon dioxide emissions, they should not by right be asked to take on internationally mandated targets for emission reduction. But it is also true, as the Stern report points out, that even if the OECD countries were to cut their 1990 emission levels by as much as 90 per cent by 2050, a sustainable growth path would require others (read China and India) to also control their emissions. The number of coal-fired boilers that China proposes to commission, for instance, is so huge that it will certainly impact global warming; India cannot be far behind. So there can be little doubt that these two large and rapidly growing countries will have to get down to emissions cutting sooner or later, not because the rest of the world is asking them to but because it is in their own self-interest. Indeed, it would be foolhardy for India to postpone taking serious action on this front until there is global agreement on a plan of action. Europe, which has a better emissions record than the United States, has not waited for the US to take the lead and is pressing ahead with corrective action on its own. India should do the same, unilaterally—without it being part of any international commitment (in the same way that it has done trade liberalisation without waiting for the WTO to get its act together).

Many steps are possible, including research (and then its propagation) on crops that would be more resistant to higher temperatures; on strengthening systems to deal with larger outbreaks of disease that are likely with higher temperatures; on crops that require less water; on dealing with disasters such as more frequent flooding—as the experience in Mumbai shows, the levels of preparedness are still inadequate. As the finance minister said at the recent India Economic Summit, what India should ask of the developed countries is technology that will help it reduce emissions—in the same way that help was given for reducing dependence on technologies that caused the ozone problem.