Occurrences of cyclones, floods and other environmental catastrophes are, in these days, not something which we hear about once in a blue moon. If you follow the global news regularly, you might have heard or read about them very often. Sometimes, these calamities spark off some debates about a term which is, though, spoken about very frequently, yet understood very less- climate change. The callousness with which this term is used, especially in countries like India (if at all it is used, it is largely in some big-time debates) is unfortunate. Ironically, India is one of the countries which are very prone to climate-related catastrophes like floods, droughts, heat waves and cyclones. Just browse over the number of such incidents that were recorded in India this year and it may help you understand the gravity of the situation.
In the current times, people tend to comprehend more when things are presented to them as figures of profit and loss, rather than bare facts. So let me present the economics of this ‘cliché’ issue of ‘effects of climate change on India’. India, it seems, will have to pay a very high social cost for climate change. An Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected world-wide temperature rise of 4ºC by the end of 21st century. The Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai has reported that if the predictions of the IPCC were to come to fruition, it may cause India’s GDP to drop by 9% and the crop production to fall by 40%. About 7 million people already face the risk of displacement and many major Indian cities risk their partly submergence even if the global temperature was to rise by a mere 2ºC, let alone the rise projected by IPCC. This is not the end of the problems. Many South-Asian countries like Bangladesh are even at a higher risk. Wait, but that is not our problem, right? Think again! What are we going to do to the problem of huge influx of refugees from countries like Bangladesh that will soon follow? Do we have sufficient resources to feed all those mouths?
Fortune fared well and the global community did become serious about the issue of climate change which led to the signing of Paris Climate Change Agreement in 2015, by 195 countries, which included India. The striking feature which made it different was the fact that it did not impose general targets for everyone alike, which are largely impractical to attain, rather it allowed the states to set their own targets to cap the global temperature rise well below 2ºC, compared to the pre-industrial level. In the recent G-20 virtual summit, climate change was a major issue. Nearly 120 countries have announced their plans for net-zero emissions by 2050 and this category includes countries like Japan, South Korea, South Africa and Canada. Another key feature of this summit was the address of Chinese Premier Xi Jinping in which he pledged that China, being the largest emitter of CO2, will achieve net-zero emissions by 2060. China is actively trying to take on the role of the global leader in the mitigation of climate-change problems. This brings the spot-light on India, being the 3rd largest emitter of CO2 in the world. India committed a cut of 33%-35% in the per-capita carbon emissions than 2005 levels by 2030 in the Paris Agreement. In the G-20 summit, Prime Minister Modi reiterated that India will not only meet its commitments but will also overachieve. However, various international think-tanks were not pleased as they have been of the opinion that India’s strategy has always been of under-promising and over-achieving. The recent reiteration does not look very promising when compared with the commitments of various other global and economic powers. This brings us to the question- Is India really ready to shoulder equal responsibility towards our planet with the other major economies of the world or if it is so, then is India really being unambitious by keeping the targets low? Is India losing a chance to be a forerunner among the global community and is it doing justice to the world by doing so little when it is the third largest carbon-emitter in the world?
India is still prioritizing economic growth. Though India is one of the three largest emitters of carbon, its per-capita carbon emission is still low, about 1/10th of that of the USA and 1/4th the level of China. Indian Union Minister for Environment, Mr. Prakash Javadekar said in a recent interview that India will resist any pressure to promise more ambitious climate change targets. In fact, we are focusing on increasing the per-capita power consumption, ensuring universal access to electricity in India and housing for all. Much of the polluting and carbon-emitting work lies ahead in the path of India’s economic growth.
India has a long journey of economic development ahead. We are still 10-15 years behind China in terms of economic development, poverty alleviation and development of infrastructure. I think there should not be any shame in accepting something which is a fact. No matter how much you try to overlook it with the vanity of nationalism, but the fact remains unchanged. India is currently aiming to become a 5 trillion dollar economy whereas China is already a 13.37 trillion dollar economy with vast capital resource and political clout. All arguments about the large population being the impediment in India’s road to development fail when we consider the case of China which has even larger population. The Chinese civil war ended in 1949 and the story of a war-torn China striving towards modernity began about the same time as India’s story. This is in fact the case with South Korea and Taiwan as well, both of which are India’s contemporaries in this timeline, along with China. The political scenario in these countries could be a factor but let us confine ourselves to the economic reality. Advanced countries like Japan, South Korea, the USA, Canada and even China are on a different level of economic development. India cannot match them in their ambitious targets and commitments. Why?
India’s social, economic and political situation is itself very unique. India has a huge dependence on imports when it comes to technology. Only 15%-20% of the currently required solar modules are manufactured in India out of a total demand of around 20 GW. Rest is met through imports, largely from China. Similarly, India is highly depended on imports for Li-ion batteries. Cost-effectiveness of Indian products is still an issue in the international and domestic market. The irony is in the fact that India needed a policy like ‘Aatm-nirbhar Bharat’ after nearly 75 years of its independence when its other contemporaries like South Korea, Taiwan and China were focusing on import substitution around 1960s and 1970s. Politically, there has been an unofficial policy of ‘U-turn’ on several key policies. Recently, Indian government dropped its national policy to support the growth of electric vehicles. The planning of infrastructure for the electric vehicles is still in the pipeline stage. Socially, there has been a dis-trust and a reluctance to invest in and accept new technologies like the electric vehicles. Currently, only public sector was economically viable for electric vehicles, even if the government had continued its policy. India’s situation is also different from the west and east-Asian powers in the fact that unlike them, large source of emissions in India are not just from industries where we can just upgrade or install better technologies to reduce our emissions. The situation is more complex in India. Rural and tribal India still depends on fire-wood and coal for domestic heating purposes. Add to this some of the agricultural practices which are already choking Indian cities out for breath. India’s political economy is no less in adding to the list of problems that India already has in its plate. Being an electoral issue, the public power distribution in India is highly subsidized. How can the debt-ridden power companies in the distribution sector invest in energy-efficient technologies on a large scale? The commercial usage of electricity has higher tariff rates, so many small and medium enterprises tend to depend on coal and diesel (DGs) for energy rather than the electricity from power distribution companies.
High poverty rates, lack of awareness among the people about the issue of climate change and its gravity (climate change is still far from being an electoral issue in India, unlike the west) and the lack of proper infrastructure really put India in a tight spot where it could not afford to make a ‘choice’. The choice before India is more or less binary- Poverty alleviation & industrialization V/S Climate change. There is very little room for making trade-offs, far from trying to lead the global community by sharing its responsibility as the world’s 3rd largest carbon-emitter, and even if there is, can India afford it, amidst the existing social, political and economic conditions? I leave it to you to ponder. But could these factors excuse India’s complacency? After all, the effects of climate change don’t have an intelligent differentiation between countries which have contributed more to the problem and less to the problem. Will climate change spare you for your low per-capita emissions or for your poor infrastructure and the lack of choice?