Cancun: Bad for us, bad for the climate

The clandestine endgame being played out at the climate change conference at Cancun has concluded in a deal. The commentators and climate activists in the western world are ecstatic.

Even the critics say pragmatism has worked and the world has taken a small step ahead in its battle to fight emissions that determine its growth.

Let's assess the outcome at Cancun to see if this is indeed a step forward.

The challenge of climate change is formidable, we know. This is why at the Bali climate conference held in 2007 the target on the table was for the industrialised countries to cut 20-40 per cent by 2020, over their 1990 levels.

The actual number was to be finalised at subsequent meetings. So, what does Cancun do? It mouths some platitudes that the industrialised countries will scale up their mitigation efforts. But it does not specify a target. It literally lets these countries off the hook.

Instead, it endorses an arrangement that emission reduction commitments of industrialised countries will be decided on the voluntary pledge they make.

They will tell us how much they can cut and by when. The US, which has been instrumental in getting the deal at Cancun, is the biggest winner.

If its target to reduce emissions were based on its historical and current contribution to the problem, the country would have to cut 40 per cent by 2020 over 1990 levels.

Now it has pledged that it will cut zero percentage points in this same period. The Cancun deal legitimises its right to pollute.

But this is not the end. Under the Cancun deal, all countries, including India and China, are now committed to reduce emissions. Our pledge to reduce energy intensity by 20-25 per cent by 2020 is part of this global deal.

There can be no disagreements about this. After all, all countries must be part of the solution. It is also in our best interest to avoid pollution for growth.

But surely nobody can agree that the burden of the transition should shift to the developing world. But this is what has been dealt at Cancun.

If you compare the sum of the "pledges" made by the industrialised countries against the "pledges" made by developing countries, including China and India, a curious fact emerges.

While the total amount that the rich will cut amounts to some 0.8-1.8 billion tonnes of CO2e, the poor developing countries have agreed to cut 2.3 billion tonnes of CO2e by 2020.

In other words, emission reduction promised by the industrialised world is pathetic. And the principle of equity in burden-sharing has been completely done away with.

And let us be clear: Cancun makes no pretence that global equity is a principle that is best thrashed in the world's dustbins. Just consider.

All previous drafts of this agreement stated that developing countries would have equitable access to the global carbon budget. But this has been crucially diluted in the Cancun agreement.

Now it reads in a fuzzy and meaningless way that there will be "equitable access to sustainable development". In other words, we have bartered away the need to apportion the global atmospheric space based on our right to development.

But even this is not the worst. Let us for a moment say that we in India should be willing to pay this price for the global common good.

But then the deal should be effective in its target to cut emissions. Instead, the pledges will add up to practically nothing in terms of averting the worst of climate change.

The calculation is that with the Cancun deal in force, the world is on a 3-4º C temperature increase. We know that we are most vulnerable to climate change.

We know that already when world average temperatures have increased by just 0.8º C, our monsoons are showing signs of extreme variability - more rain in less rainy days - leading to floods and droughts.

Then how can a weak and ineffective deal on climate change be good for us?

But the spin doctors want us to believe differently. This is understandable. Cancun is a deal, which protects the interests of the rich polluters. It is their prize.

But the question is what has the poor developing world got in return? There is no commitment to cut emissions, needed to avert climate change.

No money is promised as well. The agreement provides for the creation of a green fund and repeats the decision to give $30 billion as fast-track funding by 2012 and $100 billion by 2020.

But this is fictional money to cajole and bribe. The fact is that the rich world is saying openly that it cannot pay because of its recession. It now wants the developing world to look for these funds in the private sector. Nothing real is on the table.

The technology deal is even weaker. It only says that it will set up a technology centre. The tricky issue of preferential access to IPR over low-carbon technologies, which was being demanded by the developing world, has been skipped altogether.

The fact is that we hate being hated in the rich man's world. Cancun is about our need to be deal-makers on their behalf - even if it costs us the earth.