On Climate Change

One of the highlights of Clinton's visit to India was India's stern no to any legally binding emission cuts. India's position is that India's per capita emissions are among the lowest among the world, and even with current growth rate of GDP, they are not going to rise significantly. If millions of Indians have to be lifted out of poverty India needs high GDP growth rate and any restrictions placed on India as a result of climate change pacts or protocols is only going to hinder India's growth. Consequently the poor are going to suffer. Secondly it is the developed countries who are solely responsible for this mess. So they have to do be the main agent of change.

Some experts have suggested that instead of using per capita emissions as a parameter, emissions per GDP (or GDP per emission) could be considered. This could be the right strategy which should be accepted by the developing as well as developed countries. Whatever nations or people say the fact remains that climate change is a real threat and something needs to be done about it sooner. The ill effects of climate change are going to be felt across the world and they are not limited to one region or country.

Carbon emissions per GDP is supposed to measure the efficiency of an economy, where as carbon emissions per capita is more a measure of industrialization than anything else. In modern economy energy use is high. Virtually all the economic activities depend on some kind of energy source , whether electrical or mechanical. Most of this energy is derived from fossil fuels which are the chief emitter of carbon. Thus emissions per GDP measure the kind of technology being used to fuel the economy. For eg, by having tougher emission standards, carbon emissions by vehicles can be controlled. Similarly for coal fired power plants (coal is less cleaner fuel than petrol when it comes to carbon emissions), by using effcient technology and techniques such as carbon capturing we can reduce the carbon emissions. Adoption of new and efficient technology will also fuel GDP growth. Moving towards renewable sources like solar and wind will create new jobs and help in cleaner GDP growth.

Let us compare the ratio of GDP to CO2 emissions for some countries.(source: wikipedia)

Sweden 6.591

France 5.373

Italy 3.842

UK 3.670

Germany 3.390

US 1.936

Kuwait 0.596

India 0.497

China 0.450

Iran 0.372

The higher the ratio the better it is. The value for UK is almost double that of US. So though both the countries have developed economies, UK's economy is much more carbon efficient than US. This is generally true for all major European economies. Most of the developing countries fare poorly on this front. India is slightly better than China. As can be seen developed countries in general are much better placed in the list. Also the gulf countries where petroleum is available in plenty are performing pretty poorly.

I am not sure how the carbon emissions are calculated. I assume that these emissions are calulated on the basis of fossil fuels burnt plus the carbon emissions by the industries which are of non fossil fuel origin such as by cement industry. Livestock are also major cause of carbon emissions. Cows emit methane which is 20 times as potent than CO2 in absorbing heat.

So it can be clearly seen that there is large variation of emissions per capita across countries. It can be clearly established that developing countries lag far behind the developed ones. The clean technology transfer from developed to developing countries can mitiagate this difference. This is something the diplomats should look at. There is large scope of cooperation between the countries on clean energy front. The other trend is the variation among the developed countries. This may be because that European countries have done much more than US on this front. For eg petrol is cheaper in US than in Europe. This is reflected in the petroleum consumption per capita. US consumes around 24.8 thousand barrels(bbl) per year per capita whereas the same for UK is 10.9 and France is 11.9.Bigger cars are more popular in US than in Europe. This is also a lifestyle thing. One of the reasons for bankruptcy of US carmakers was the increasing market share of Japanese car manufactureres like Toyota and Honda whose small cars are becoming more popular than SUV's like Hummer. Another example is of trains. High speed trains are very popular in Europe for long distance travel. On the other hand people in US rely mainly on airways for the same. Energywise railways are more efficient than the airways.

One more important factor is the role that forests play in fighting climate change. The role played by forests in maintainig the ecological balance of the planet is well established. By absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen they help in maintaing the balance of gases in air. So if we have to fight climate change effectively the treaties related to climate change should give adequate incentives to preserve forests. The forests world over are facing the wrath of increasing population. A case in point is that of Brazil. The large Amazon forests of Brazil are being cut to make way for farms. In recent years Brazil has become a large exporter of foodgrains. This has brought prosperity to many Brazilians. But it has come at a heavy cost. Each year large tracts of Amazon forests are being cleared to make way for farms. Any efforts to stop deforestation brings opposition from local people and govt.

Read more »