CLIMATE DEAL –GLOBAL AGREEMENT
With
some national capitals from Poland to Portugal pleading special circumstances
and others pushing to expand caps into new sectors, the deal was significant
for the distance covered than what remains to be done. The European Trade Union
Confederation, which represents about 60 million workers, has criticised the
targets as too low, that potentially could take away a million jobs created in
a low-carbon economy. At the same time, with an eye on the 2015 climate summit,
the Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group backed by over 50 companies
representing 4.5 million employees worldwide have advocated a robust EU climate
and energy policy. This is a sign of convergence of interest between industry
and employee bodies that would be crucial to clinch a global pact in Paris. The
record of the Kyoto Protocol shows that countries with a pre-existing high
technology base did not achieve the highest emissions reductions, perhaps in
view of their lock-in effects. It was the transitional economies of the states
of the former Soviet Union that registered impressive reductions. Here may be a
lesson for emerging economies such as India to make strategic decisions with an
eye on opportunities for the future. The failure of the Copenhagen 2009 summit
would undoubtedly temper expectations among EU leaders about a global deal. But
Washington has travelled some distance since then and climate sceptics are on
the back foot these days. There is thus real potential for progress.
Europe has committed to
transfer clean technology to developing countries in the form of Global Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund (GEEREF), a global risk capital fund that
will use public money to marshal private investment in energy efficient and
renewable projects in developing countries . In order to achieve the target of
reducing EU domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 40% in 2030, the sectors
covered by the EU Emissions Trading System are planning to reduce their
emissions by 43% compared to 2005. Emissions from sectors outside the EU ETS
would have to cut by 30% below the 2005 level. This will be translated into
Member State targets. Then by increasing the share of renewable energy to 27%
of the EU's energy consumption by 2030, by a 30% energy savings target for 2030
through energy efficiency and a 43% greenhouse reduction target in 2030 for the
ETS are not only innovative but courageous initiatives to combat climate
change. India should learn from this.The target of achieving 40 per cent
cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 is rather idealistic in the sense that
almost all countries, including the developing ones, are development hungry
which means a crazy use of technology, mindless exploitation of natural
resources resulting in more and more greenhouse gas. Under such prevailing
circumsta- nces, the planet cannot enjoy both the worlds at the same time. If
the developed countries are really serious about accepting the challenge of
greenhouse gas emissions, they will have to set realistic and short term
targets and duly check if the set cut has been accompli shed. Small steps can
lead to the lofty ambition of 40 per cent reduction. If it is not done,
alternative ways can be searched for. A long duration target means deliberately
and intentionally keeping the problem on hold for time being. It does not
demonstrate sincerity and real concern of nations towards climate changes.
In India, population is a
big issue. Combine it with the demand and malpractices in the coal department,
we have a gruesome situation. Current power plants are not running, banks are
going gaga. In such a time, why anyone would want to invest in the renewable
sources. The only solution the government has is to first kick start the
current power situation and then invite clean energy after a few years when
companies have cash surplus and FDI becomes strong. Not that it is not growing
as of now, but the current growth rate of renewable energy production is too
low as compared to the demands.When each ton of oil/petroleum is burned,
over 8000 KWH energy in the form of heat are spewed into the atmosphere, apart
from other obnoxious chemicals/smoke. The USA spews about 19,760,000,000
KWH/day; China 10,400,000,000 KWH/day; Japan 4,680,000,000 KWH/day; India
3,640,000,000. Just four major oil using nations spew heat 24x7x365 @ 1,603,333
MWe power equivalent. This is about one-third of the world total. All protocols
and summits seem to gloss over this most important fact and no action is being
planned to reduce this heat generation that gets trapped withing the world's
atmosphere. The main contributors are aircraft, automobiles and petroleum based
power plants. Unless the world reduces petroleum consumption, drastically, any
attempt to talk about Greenhouse gas reduction to reduce impacts of climate
change will not have any meaning. How do we reduce this without reducing
dependence on oil for transportation?
Few people know that the
European agreement that was just made has an escape clause. If other major
emitters such as the United States do not make similar commitments in Paris in
2015, the EU will return to the 20 percent target. It is all but certain that
in 2015 the Republicans will control both the U.S. Congress and Senate. In
addition, all polls show that Americans are less concerned about climate change
than any other issue. The United States will not make a similar commitment and the
EU will invoke the escape clause.Few people know that the European
agreement that was just made has an escape clause. If other major emitters such
as the United States do not make similar commitments in Paris in 2015, the EU
will return to the 20 percent target. It is all but certain that in 2015 the
Republicans will control both the U.S. Congress and Senate. In addition, all
polls show that Americans are less concerned about climate change than any
other issue. The United States will not make a similar commitment and the EU
will invoke the escape clause.
Prof. John Kurakar
No comments:
Post a Comment