Kyoto to Copenhagen:

The upcoming UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen is expected to draw a fine line between the developing and developed nations. The voices of developing nations like India and China are echoing more than those of the developed nations because of their genuine argument that industrialization in developed countries has resulted in the current crisis, so the developed countries should shoulder more responsibility.

'Carbon Emission and Climate Change' is perhaps the most debatable topic of the current century. There have been several round-table discussions on this topic, but due to the complexity involved in handling it, world organizations have not been able to reach a consensus so far. A ray of hope now arises in the form of the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference, Copenhagen, in December. Copenhagen is significant not only because it will replace the existing Kyoto protocol, but also because the Carbon conundrum has been affecting the development process of governments across the world. Unless the international body devises a successful formula to deal with carbon emissions immediately, many countries will lose valuable time and resources that are waiting to be exploited. Several industry initiatives in developing countries are in a deadlock owing to the uncertainties surrounding the utilization of resources to create an energy-efficient business model that will comply with the upcoming ecological standards.

The Copenhagen conference will focus on four major issues, according to Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as told to Environment & Energy Publishing (E&E). They are: the extent of willingness of the industrialized countries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases; the approach of major developing countries such as China and India to limit the growth of their emissions; the way to offer financial help to developing countries that engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change; and lastly, the management of the money among them. Yvo de Boer hopes to get a consensus among countries on this highly sensitive issue.

The new climate policy in Copenhagen will replace the Kyoto Protocol, in effect from Feb. 16, 2005. The Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, has clearly set targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The policy has been signed and ratified by 184 parties of the UN Climate Convention. A notable exception was the United States. There has been wider criticism against the Bush administration for their failure in accepting the policy. The U.S. rejected the Kyoto Protocol citing two reasons: first, there was no active participation from major developing countries, and second, the policy will hinder the economic development of the country.

Copenhagen also gains significance because of the support from the Obama administration. The new government is keen on taking proactive steps in formulating a widely accepted carbon policy. There have been significant moves within the U.S. to facilitate real carbon reductions. The House has already passed the cap and trade bill and it is up for debate in the Senate. If put into practice, these measures will help the U.S. reduce carbon emissions by 13 percent from the 1990 level by 2020. Meanwhile, the European Union has pledged to reduce the carbon emissions level 20 percent below the 1990 levels during the same period.

An estimate on carbon emissions set by expert scientists says that by 2050, the world must cut emissions levels by 80 percent compared with 1990 levels, so as to ensure that global temperature does not climb in excess of two degrees centigrade. Participating countries at the last G8 summit had pledged to keep the global temperature increase due to climate change to 2 degrees or less. This translates into the fact that developed countries should cut the emission as much as 40 percent by 2020. So far, no country has agreed to this condition, however. The Copenhagen summit targets to achieve this and more.

Where Do India and China Stand?

The topic that will be discussed the most at Copenhagen will be the sharing of responsibility among the developed and developing countries. The UNFCCC has clearly differentiated the responsibilities for both types of countries. It says that rich nations have to take the lead in reducing emissions, since the developments in these countries account for the majority of the carbon present in the atmosphere over the past years. UNFCCC urges that developing nations also should contribute an appropriate share of efforts.

The crux of the issue is here. China and India, the world's two largest countries in terms of population, will be the center of the talk since the two have not agreed to put a cap on carbon emissions. According to the latest statistics available, China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gas (21.5 percent of world's total), while the U.S. contributes an almost equal amount (20.2 percent) of the world's total carbon dioxide emission. India is in the fifth position after the European Union and Russia; however, the percent contribution from India is comparatively less (about 5.3 percent). If we look at per capita emissions, China is in the 96^th position, whereas India is in 139^th position. The U.S. still leads, being 9^th after the Gulf countries. It is worth noting that per capita emissions in China is only one quarter of that in the U.S.

At first glance, it would be embarrassing to compare India and China on emissions. There is a drastic difference in the emission levels in the two countries. The worry for the western world about India is the rapid development happening in this highly populated country. India is depending hugely on coal for its industries. The country cannot afford to switch to clean energy sources like solar power stations. For India, there are hundreds of bigger challenges that need to be addressed before addressing the issue of climate change. The basic needs of providing food and shelter to millions of people living below the poverty line is the most important among them. Still there are hundreds of villages that have not seen the light produced by electricity. In this scenario India simply cannot afford to offer huge subsidies for exploiting cleaner energy sources such as sun, wind, etc. India, therefore, cannot think of cutting its energy lines from coal for several more years.

When Hillary Clinton made a recent visit to India, Jairam Ramesh, the state environment and forests minister, clearly conveyed the message that there is simply no reason for the pressure faced by India because it is amongst the world's lowest emitters on a per capita basis. Like other developing countries including China, India was asserting its view that development is the priority for such countries. However, the countries agreed that there has been a sharp rise in aggregate carbon emissions over the last decade and something needs to be done through consensus.

The division is between the developed and the developing world. Developed countries argue that they have put in a lot of effort to devise energy-efficient technologies and cleaner energy sources to reduce carbon emissions significantly, but they are now facing the consequences of climate changes due to the pollution caused by the developing world. On the contrary, developing countries argue that the culprit for today's deteriorating ozone layer is the developed countries. They have been the largest consumers of fossil fuels for centuries. The entire world is now bearing the brunt of the impact of industrialization in the developed world. Despite the technical advancements and greener initiatives, over three fourths of the carbon emissions currently come from developed countries.

China has another argument. Being the largest manufacturing market in the world, China is forced to bear the brunt of industrialization more than any other country. The fact that a major share of the Chinese products is exported to the West indicates that China is suffering partly because it is producing goods for the developed nations. Chinese products are in demand in the West because the cost of manufacturing these products in the domestic market is much higher. Ultimately, China is facing the axe just because it is the world's biggest manufacturer. China raises its voice against this discrimination and argues that a share of the responsibility should rest on the consumers' shoulders.

China is right in many ways. By outsourcing the manufacturing process to developing countries, the West has further played it safe in environmental issues. But China does not ignore the fact that the outsourced jobs have greatly helped the country grow. China, as well as other developing countries, should reduce carbon emissions - there is no counter argument - but developed countries must subsidize the costs incurred by these countries for their efforts in reducing emissions. This argument is likely to create the hottest discussions at Copenhagen. Logically, this sounds true. Since all countries will benefit from the reduction in carbon levels, richer countries should pay for the costs involved in achieving this.

India and China, comprising about 37 percent of the global population, have decided to join forces to push for an agreement in favor of the developing nations. In an interview in Beijing with Xie Zhenhua, China's top climate change negotiator, Jairam Ramesh expressed his view that India and China should not be viewed as a "negative or obstructionist force." According to him, the two countries should be part of the solution. Ramesh was insisting on the countries' stance that developed countries should reduce carbon emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. India and China are also looking for developed countries to share more carbon-reducing technologies with poorer nations and help finance projects. This is because the economic development of these countries would be 'unfairly' hit if they were forced to accept binding greenhouse-gas emission reduction targets, said Ramesh.

According to a recent government report, China's emissions would peak by 2030. However, the government in Beijing says it is increasing energy efficiency and promoting the use of renewable energy to cut the amount of energy it consumes per unit of gross domestic product 20 percent by 2010 from 2005 levels. China is also considering putting climate legislation on its legislative agenda, according to a draft resolution on climate change, which has been submitted to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC). Once these laws are worked out, China will have "legally binding actions" to fight the illegal emissions, said Zhang Jianyu, China program head of the U.S.-based Environmental Defense Fund.

What the UN Has to Say

While pressure is on from all sides, the UN agency seems to lend their ears to the calls of developing countries. In the first week of September, the U.N. agency released its World Economic and Social Survey Report 2009, endorsing the view of India, China and other developing countries on the climate change front. In this report, the U.N. said rich countries had consumed "more than their fair share of carbon space and needed to make deep emission cuts if the new climate agreement was to be equitable." According to the U.N., the investments in energy infrastructure would have to be doubled from the existing $500 billion per year to $1 trillion, and there was a need to spend approximately $20 trillion by 2030 to facilitate a cleaner environment.

The report reveals that industrialized countries had already emitted 209 gigatonnes of carbon. If the rise in global temperatures is to be kept below 2 degrees centigrade, industrialized countries will have to reduce their emissions by more than 100 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This UN survey suggests that in a fair deal, industrialized countries should only occupy 21 percent of the global carbon budget.

According to the World Economic and Social Survey Report 2009, for every 1-degree rise in average global temperature, gross domestic product in poor countries decreases by 2-3 percentage points. This is when the poor countries need investments to the tune of $25 billion in order to connect 1.6 billion to 2 billion people who live without access to electricity. The report, therefore, recommends a global clean energy fund and a global feed-in tariff regime in addition to a better carbon trading mechanism and a forest-related financing mechanism to ensure that needed funds are transferred from the rich to the developing countries as part of the new deal.