Climate Change: Whose Responsibility

Procrastination is an integral part of human lives. We rarely miss that trait in people we come across every day. On the macro level, the same character is very much prevalent. It is no different with climate change. The world woke up to the grim reality of human induced ‘climate change’ in the last half of the 20^th century. Since then, there has been considerable progress through mechanisms like the Kyoto protocol with few countries accepting obligations to reduce their green house emissions. But it is well agreed among international organizations that it is not sufficient. If climate change is to have a minimal impact on human lives it is mandatory that world nations reach a concrete agreement in the COP in Paris which has begun yesterday.

The convention during the Earth summit in Rio 1992 accepted that climate change is accelerated by human actions. It is accepted widely that the impact on the earth will be minimal if the temperature rise is kept below 2 degree Celsius. Hence a quicker resolution is in the interest of humanity. Yet it has taken more than two decades to reach Paris. The considerable delay in negotiating is due to the finding answers for hard questions of whose responsibility and who is to shoulder future responsibility.

It is an irony that development needs pollution. The 2 degree Celsius limit on global temperature from the pre industrial times indicates that there is a limit in the carbon space in the atmosphere. The fruits of the industrial revolution enabled the Western nations to accelerate in using the carbon space in the atmosphere. They enjoyed the fruits of development by emitting green house gases considerably.

This has put the world in a fix. Developing nations want the rich and developed nations to reduce their emissions since they owe historic responsibility of using carbon space. Developed nations on the other hand want the developing nations to cut emissions since they are the rising polluters now. The argument by developed nations fails to acknowledge that most of the world poor lives in developing nations. Every individual nation on earth has the right to their share of carbon space. Pollution in most developing countries is for livelihood.

But this juncture is crucial for India. Currently, India is the third largest emitter of green house gases. Yet India’s per capita emissions (1.8) are nowhere near USA (16.7) or China (7.6) which has a comparable population to India. So, India should do well to avoid any international pressure to commit to external obligations. But on the other hand India should act accordingly to ground realities.

One, though India’s per capita emissions are less they are not uniform throughout the country. Urban pockets utilize maximum energy compared to the rural counterparts. Two, India which envisions being a future leader should take into account the plight of the African nations who are to tread the development path in the future.

India should take the lead in expressing intended emission cuts and chart a strict course in achieving it. It should invoke carbon and energy taxation to reduce the disparity which exists within the nation. By subjecting itself to reasonable intended emissions India would gain not only the advantage of leading the developing nations but also to commit more obligations from the rich countries. National interest should be compromised for global interest since in climate change we either swim or sink together.

Climate change conferences and campaigns for environment do not receive their desired recognition because they tend to highlight the impacts on nature through slogans such as ‘Save the Earth’ etc. This is the basic flaw which makes humans procrastinate. Climate change will have the most devastating impact on humans. If the initial campaigns have started with the quote ‘save human race’ maybe it would have had the desired effect.

Nature’s human web and our dependence on innumerable organisms is so complex that we have not understood the impact if few organisms vanish from the globe. We never understand a thing’s value until we lose it. Rather than contemplating heavy losses in future it is better to mitigate in all ways possible.

(Photo courtesy: Bengin Ahmad)

The greatest irony of the COP in Paris is the poor man standing outside the conference hall. He is the one who is the most vulnerable if food production is affected, if winds turn cold, if rain gets heavy, if the sun burns, if nations go to war. It is hoped that he is remembered when the leaders discuss their commitments to climate change. After all he is the one to whom we all are responsible. 

Photo courtesy:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/benginahmad/15893297987/