Indias climate change action plan
India faces an uphill task of not only convincing the global community but even environmentalists in the country about the feasibility of its action plan, says P P Sangal
INDIAS National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), eagerly awaited by environmentalists, has been unveiled recently by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. China and other fast developing economies too have come out with their action plans. A few days back, the G-8 nations also deliberated on measures for abatement of global warming at Hokkaido, Japan. Eight other countries, outside the G-8, including India and China were also invited to this summit. Certainly, all these action plans and discussions at the G-8 meeting would have great repercussions on deliberations in Poland on climate change in December 2008 followed by the final round at Copenhagen in December 2009. These would form the basis for evolving a new treaty alternative to Kyoto Protocol expiring on 2012.
Against this backdrop, let us look carefully at the three salient features of our NAPCC. Firstly, it states that Indias per capita GHGs emission would at no point exceed that of the developed countries. Secondly, India has stuck to its earlier stand of not committing to specific emission reduction targets or energy efficiency targets. Thirdly, the plan would be implemented through eight missions, viz., (a) enhancing solar energy contribution in total energy mix, (b) introducing energy efficiency steps, (c) promoting sustainable habitats, (d) saving Himalayan glaciers, (e) water resource management, (f) protecting mountain eco-systems, (g) improving eco-system services and (h) making agriculture more resilient and adaptable to climate change.
Let us analyse the above features of NAPCC from two angles, both of which are vital. One for meeting our growth objectives through a low carbon and ecologically sustainable path and two, its acceptability at the global level to increase our bargaining power with the rich nations, specially for providing clean technologies at cheaper rates.
Regarding per capita emissions, the rich countries have to take into account that Indias per capita emission is just above one tonne compared to their average per capita emission of above 12 tonnes. This gives India enough headroom for development and industrialisation, which is very necessary to combat its poverty. In fact, it is the OECD economies which should undertake deep emission cuts, say 50%, as they are responsible for emitting merely 70% of total global emissions. Since other fast developing economies, viz., China, Brazil, Russia South Africa and Mexico are equally under pressure to accept emission reduction targets set by rich nations, a joint campaign in the direction is needed.
Talking about the second feature, we face the risk of receiving flak from western developed nations because our action plan does not fix any emission reduction targets, even though we are right in doing so. A case in point is the stern warning already issued by US Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain, to both India and China, to accept global standards on emissions, or else face sanctions. Only Germany, France and UK have showed some appreciation of our position at the G-8 summit in Hokkaido.
It is evident that India faces an uphill task of not only convincing the global community but even environmentalists in India. It would be easier, however , if we are able to work out quantitative goals and specific institutional mechanisms and regulations in respect of all eight missions, which constitute the core of our action plan. We also need to evolve certain feasible, and verifiable indicators for each mission for their impact assessment. With such details, it would be possible to carry out a scientific evaluation of our plan with regard to efficacy in reducing global warming both locally and globally.
HERE, I wish to make a few suggestions, for the consideration of the Climate Change Council under PMO in respect of the energy mix in our energy productions programme. At present, nearly 80% of our energy comes from burning of fossil fuels the greatest source of GHGs. The action plan talks about increasing the share of solar energy and this is welcome. However, there is no mention of enhancing production of nuclear energy which is 3% (about 3,100MW) of our total energy. Now, when the prospects of the India-US nuclear agreement getting through are brighter in the changed political scenario, the nuclear energy programme should be given a boost. The nuclear power would work out to be economical over time once the constraints of access to nuclear fuel, required technology and capital are removed, as a result of the deal.
Further, scientists have proved that if India installed 200,000 MW of nuclear power by 2020, it would save the world 145 million tonnes of carbon emissions. This is equal to the entire commitment of EU countries to reduce emissions under Kyoto Protocol. Would it not be a great achievement towards reducing global warming? The task is not difficult. Let us learn from the example of France which has produced 42,000 MW of nuclear power in just 10 years starting 1989 to 1999. Today, 70% of its energy is nuclear.
Wind energy is another source of renewable energy. In India, there is ample of scope for tapping it as our gross wind energy power potential has been assessed at 45,000 MW. At present, we have wind power installed capacity of 7,200 MW only most of which is in the private sector. Thus we should also increase the contribution of wind energy in our total energy mix. The cost of production of solar and wind energy is higher at present but it will come down when economies of scale are achieved and conversion efficiencies are improved.
To conclude, the rich economies cannot shirk their responsibility of adopting emission cuts to the extent of 50% by 2050 as proposed at the G-8 summit in Japan. And this needs to be done without forcing developing nations to do likewise. Lets all remember that at current rate of emissions, the world would be hitting a disastrous threshold limit of 550 PPM of carbon emissions in less than a decade, if above measures are not taken on a war footing.
(The author, former director, Central Statistical Organisation, is a consultant on environment and poverty alleviation)