As the global temperature soars, countries must come forward on net-zero emissions
The blame game between the developed and developing world leaves its impact on climate change. The G20 grouping of powerful economies, unable to resolve differences on account of pushback from the developing countries led by India, shied away from any time-bound pacts. The outcome of the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, therefore, looks like a foregone conclusion. The G20 meeting in Rome was supposed to lay the ground and the context for the meeting in Scotland. The big economies, which together emit nearly 80 per cent of carbon emissions, had no problem agreeing to the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. After all, much of the work is to be done by the developing world. However, on net zero emissions, the G20 countries were unwilling to set a target. They agreed to recognise the “key relevance of achieving global net zero” emissions “by or around mid-century”. They could not have been more vague than this. They agreed to stop financing coal-based power projects abroad and invest more in renewable energy but set no target to phase out the use of coal domestically. The G20 summit achieved little else other than its leaders visiting the famous Trevi Fountain for a photo-op. The reason for a lukewarm outcome is a pushback by the developing world.
India, for instance, made it clear that the first world will have to do more to achieve net zero carbon emissions. India launched a special website on the eve of COP26 that highlights the large disparity in historical emissions. It shows the developed world with carbon debt and the developing world with carbon credit. India insists that equitable sharing of the global carbon budget is the “fundamental equity principle” that should determine climate change targets. On net zero, India says the developed countries, which for long have enjoyed the benefits of low-cost energy, should go in for net zero faster than the developing world. India shrewdly used the occasion to tell the first world that its membership to the Nuclear Suppliers Group is linked to its search for renewable energy. What India meant was it was indeed looking for new technology to replace coal, say, with nuclear energy but for the technology and raw material to be made available to it, India needs to enter the NSG. The membership is held up because of China’s opposition. COP26 began in such a divisive backdrop. It has to first relieve itself of the baggage of COP25 it has carried from Madrid. The 2019 meeting witnessed long-drawn sessions with countries trying to negotiate climate loopholes for their benefit. Real issues like Article 6, reporting requirements for transparency and “common timeframes” for climate pledges, were pushed to the latest COP to decide. Given the lack of unanimity in the latest G20 and previous COPs, Glasgow may achieve nothing concrete until differentiated responsibilities for common goals are agreed upon.
