Clear the air: unprepared India and pushy US jeopardise an initiative on climate change

President Bill Clinton's visit may see a joint statement with Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee in two key areas: climate change and renewable energy. Clearly, the threat of climate change requires solid understanding and partnership between countries of the north and south. Given the fact that the US has historically been, and is, the largest contributor of emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), its actions to limit these emissions are of considerable importance. India is important as it is a leading voice among the Group of 77, which has taken fairly uniform positions in negotiations on climate change. Clinton's visit and his eagerness to effect a shift in the Indian position also provides India with opportunities to get gain something without conceding too much. Unfortunately, the preparation and intellectual effort for such a deal is totally missing on the Indian side. Hence, India has to be very careful in signing a statement that might openly or implicitly commit itself to actions that could burden the Indian economy or seem a sellout in the eyes of Indians and of other developing countries involved in negotiations under the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). Clinton's anxiety to sign a statement that might commit India to specific actions and timetables can be explained by the course of developments since the FCCC was agreed on at the June 1992 Rio Summit. Very little was done to implement the FCCC during the first four years of the Clinton Administration. The first major development in implementing the convention took place at the third conference of the parties at Kyoto in 1997, committing the US to a 7 per cent reduction in emissions of GHGs over 1990 levels by 2012. The Kyoto Protocol hangs in the shadow of a non-binding resolution passed by the US Senate refusing to ratify it unless several conditions were met, the most notable of which targeted "meaningful participation" by key developing countries. To comply with this condition, the US Administration has been making efforts to get voluntary commitments for reduced GHG emissions by certain developing countries and acceptance of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) included in the Kyoto Protocol. The provision of the CDM, in simple terms, allows developed countries to invest in projects in developing countries and receive credit for the amount by which emissions are reduced as a result. The manner in which the CDM projects are to be accepted, monitored and measured is still being worked out. Any agreement signed by Clinton and Vajpayee that implies a voluntary commitment on the part of India to reduce of GHG emissions and any commitment to participate actively in CDM projects would be presented to the US Senate as a major step fulfilling the condition of "meaningful participation". But this could prove expensive to India, and could erode India's position in the G-77. For India to commit itself to specific targets within a specific time frame in an agreement with the US could compromise the country's interests. A statement of principles and policies - yes; but quantitative targets would be unjustifiable. It also seems inequitable that the US, which uses 805 kg of oil equivalent (kgoe) per capita of commercial energy requires a shift in policy on the part of a country like India, which uses 40 kgoe per capita without any promise on its part to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The Clinton visit provides an opportunity for partnerships in which the US could commit funding involving the national laboratories of the US Department of Energy and Indian organizations for joint research and development of renewable-energy technologies. It can also help India in achieving improvements in the efficiency of specific energy-using appliances. The example of software development where US bodies and Indian software companies have worked together successfully in the past few years can be emulated in the field of renewable energy technologies, opening up global market opportunities. Sadly, it appears that unlike in the US, where substantial homework is done in preparation of a presidential visit, nothing even remotely similar has been done on the Indian side. The danger, therefore, is that a unique opportunity for both parties to work together to mitigate the threat of climate change would be lost. A greater danger is that India may end up signing what may prove expensive and impractical commitments without getting anything in return.