India’s COP 26 Pronouncements- Praiseworthy or Problematic?
Has India bitten off more than it can chew with its ambitious set of goals? Has it hindered international progress towards fighting climate change and endangered vulnerable states with its insistence on retaining coal usage rights? We must examine India’s performance at COP 26 to answer these questions.
As the world’s most populous country, and the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases, India is in a precarious position. Its climate policies will have a decisive impact on the global efforts to tackle climate change. But will it be able to reconcile the demands of climate reform with the needs of its population? The international community is divided regarding India’s pronouncements at COP 26. While some have lauded the nation for their ambition, others, including chairperson Alok Sharma, have criticised their actions at the summit.
The most ambitious of India’s goals is the declaration by Prime Minister Modi that they will achieve net-zero carbon emissions by the year 2070. This is the first time the country has set a net-zero target. PM Modi enumerated a 5-pronged strategy for India’s efforts to tackle climate change, which he named ‘Panchamrit’, meaning five elements of nectar. What does this strategy entail? In addition to the aforementioned goal of net -zero carbon emissions, which is perhaps the most momentous of India’s declared objectives, there is also a commitment to raise India’s non fossil energy capacity to 500 GW by 2030. This goal is a notable upgrade to the previous target of 450 GW which was set at the 74th UN General Assembly. A pledge has been made to ensure that India will meet at least half its energy requirements using Renewable Energy by 2030. The total projected carbon emissions of the country are supposed to be reduced by a billion tonnes by the year 2030. The final commitment of this slew of reforms is that the overall carbon intensity of the country will be reduced to less than 45% by 2030.
How attainable are these goals?
The goal of increasing India’s non fossil energy to 500 gigawatts (GW), seen as an extension of the previous goal of 450 GW, most likely refers to electricity specifically. This was inferred from a statement made by the Ministry of External affairs. If this inference is accurate, then India has set out to more than triple its non-fossil fuel capacity, which is currently at only 154 GW.
The goal regarding 50% of energy requirements being fulfilled from renewable sources is also shrouded in ambiguity. The Observer Research Foundation, an Indian Think Tank, has deemed it “difficult to interpret.” If this goal does refer to electricity generation too, rather than to primary energy, it implies that India’s use of renewable energy, which currently constitutes a mere 10% of total power generation, would have to be increased fivefold.
India’s pledge to reduce total projected carbon emissions by 1 BT by 2030 is one which envisions drastic change. This goal implies a reduction in absolute levels of co2 emissions. If successful, this would return the country to 2007 levels of CO2 emissions.
The pledge of a 45% reduction in carbon intensity seems like the least ambitious and most achievable target set by India. This would be in continuity with India’s previously stated goal of a 35% reduction from 2005 levels. In the year 2020, India managed to attain a 28% reduction compared to 2005 levels. If India continues along this trajectory and pursues already initiated changes, this goal can be met. However, here there is a caveat. India is currently pursuing a policy which seeks to increase domestic manufacturing. This raises the question of how India will reconcile its economic goals with its climate promises.
India’s target of achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2070 has been called “diplomatically necessary” by Navroz Dubash of the Centre for Policy Research. This goal, he says, should have been made contingent upon other developed countries meeting their professed aims by 2050. Others have remarked that the promised funding being provided by developed nations should have been added as a condition too. By ignoring these aspects, India has shouldered responsibility towards this particular aim independently.
The contentions surrounding coal and India’s intervention
At the very end of the Conference, before the Glasgow Agreement could be finalised and adopted, India and China intervened to object to the words “phasing out unabated coal”. This statement, they claimed, was inconsiderate towards developing nations who faced simultaneously the burdens of lifting people out of poverty as well as of mitigating climate change. India expressed support for China’s argument which emphasised “common but differentiated responsibility”. This means that a countries level of development and capacity to make changes must be considered while devolving responsibility to them. For a brief period, the gathering feared that the disagreement would result in a failure to adopt a single text and thus in a failed summit. India’s Environment Minister, Bhupendra Yadav, suggested that the phrase “phasing out” be modified to “phasing down.” The difference in a single word has profound implications and India’s move has elicited widespread criticism. The chairman of the conference, Alok Sharma, allegedly held back tears after the change and has since called on India to “explain themselves and what they did to the most climate-vulnerable countries in the world”.
Equitable-not equal- responsibility
India’s ambitious commitments have been largely overshadowed by their concluding remarks and refusal to “phase out” coal. Their statements, however, do draw attention to the fact that developed nations have failed to uphold their end of the bargain. While developed nations are quick to critique poorer countries, they themselves are yet to provide the promised finances to fight climate change. The burden of reducing emissions is disproportionately carried by different countries, with poorer countries suffering due to emissions produced by larger states and struggling to make their economies stay afloat alongside tackling climate change. In addition, the agreement only targeted coal but ignored other fossil fuels such as natural gas and oil, which are used in large quantities by the US. Brandon Wu of Action Aid defended India’s intervention and said that the charter would have disproportionally impacted states like India and China, leaving them no choice but to intervene. The US’s move away from coal was followed by an increased use of natural gas, and while natural gas might not be as polluting as coal, its use is still harmful to environment. The effectiveness of the celebrated coal deal is called into question if it is replaced almost entirely by a different fossil fuel.
India emphasised that large economies must be held accountable for their role in bringing about the ongoing climate catastrophe and contribute to the decarbonisation efforts of less developed nations. Prime Minister Modi called on developed countries to provide 1 trillion dollars towards this cause. The situation is hard to navigate, and while the importance of immediate radical climate action cannot be overstated, one does wonder if it is hypocritical of wealthier nations to vehemently criticise the nations torn for choice, when they themselves have failed to provide what is owed of them.
