Bhamy V Shenoy
Initial media reporting on the conclusion of the Paris Summit was euphoric – a historic agreement, a tipping point in fighting climate change, unprecedented international cooperation among 195 nations, and 186 nations willingly and voluntarily submitting, for the first time, their intentions to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs).
However, within a day some activists, including some leading scientists who have been involved in promoting policies to reduce GHGs, started to draw attention to the half finished job of negotiators. James Hansen, a retired Nasa scientist, and often considered as father of creating climate change awareness, has referred to Paris summit as a fraud.
Should we be excited about the outcome of the Paris Climate Summit or be despondent on what was negotiated? This is a good example of looking at the glass half-full or half-empty and both the groups are right in their conclusions.
Negotiators wanted to send a powerful message to investors that one of the intended results of their agreement is the end of the fossil fuel era and that they need to start allocating more of their funds to non-fossil fuel resources. Though decarbonisation of the economy is the goal, it is not spelt out. This is because of the opposition by countries led by Saudi Arabia.
It is close to a miracle that despite the obvious drawbacks of Paris agreement (submissions to reduce emissions are not legally binding, failure of developed nations to finance annual funding of $100 billion, lip service to have 1.5 degree Celsius as an aspirational goal, lack of accountability on the part of the nations, etc), the summit can be considered as an astounding success.
This is the first time both the developed and developing nations have agreed to fight climate change as a joint responsibility. They have also agreed to meet every five years to take stock of the actual emission reductions besides monitoring of efforts to reduce emissions. Doors are kept open to increase the emission reduction efforts in the future to limit the possible temperature rise to less than 2 degree Celsius.
In their signature publication, World Energy Outlook 2015, International Energy Administration (IEA) had concluded that under the New Policy scenario – which takes into consideration Intended Nationally Determined Contributions – it is not possible to limit temperature rise to 2 degrees.
The IEA had developed 450 scenarios under which temperature rise can be limited to 2 degrees. But such a scenario requires tremendous energy sector reform which will not be easy if mankind does not adopt the simple lifestyle suggested by Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the Paris summit.
It is not a surprise that neither the Indian media nor the international media has given any importance to Modi’s suggestions. This is because no one likes to change their lifestyle unless it is forced upon them by nature. While business as usual could lead to disaster and the Paris summit is giving some breathing space, much more is needed. There is a comforting thought that fall in solar energy and wind energy costs, and their greater adaption, will provide solution to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
But long-term energy forecasts done by major institutions like IEA, BP, ExxonMobil, EIA, etc continue to predict a major role for fossil fuel to meet world energy requirements. How, then, can investors believe that the fossil fuel era will end any time soon?
It is undoubtedly true that the Paris agreement has sounded the beginning of the end. However, in the case of India, despite the intended goal of increasing the share of renewables by installing 175 GWs by 2030, coal will continue to be a dominant fuel source. So is the case with many developing countries. According to IEA, fossil fuel share will decline from 81 per cent in 2014 to 76 per cent in 2040 as per the plans submitted by the countries.
During the summit, while energy sector transition from fossil fuels to renewables and the need for reforestation to capture CO2 were considered, there was hardly any mention of the impact of people switching over to vegetarian food habits from meat eating. Also, there was not much discussion on the need to tax carbon to hasten decarbonisation and promote renewables which are still not economical with respect to fossil fuels without subsidy.
It is unfortunate that India missed an opportunity to promote its civilisational values of ‘simple living and high thinking’ as well as adoption of vegetarian food habits (livestock accounts for 15 per cent of emissions) to contribute to reduction of
emissions.
