Climate Science and National Interests
July 9th, 2008Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
The Indian government has put out a climate change action plan (PDF) that places economic development and adaptation ahead of mitigation (sound familiar?). The report was endorsed by IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri:
[Pachauri] said that India has realised the climate change threat. India’s climate change action plan recently released by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is a “good policy document” and needs to be implemented.
Interesting, the report’s views of climate science are at odds with that presented by the IPCC.
The Indian climate change action plan states of observed climate changes in India (p. 15):
No firm link between the documented [climate] changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established.
For example, the Indian report states of the melting of Himalayan glaciers (p. 15):
The available monitoring data on Himalayan glaciers indicates while some recession of glaciers has occurred in some Himalayan regions in recent years, the trend is not consistent across the entire mountain chain. It is accordingly, too early to establish long-term trends or their causation, in respect of which there are several hypotheses.
By contrast, the IPCC (WG II Ch. 10 p. 493)says of Himalayan glacier melt:
The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be
attributed primarily to the global warming due to increase in
anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases.
Imagine the reaction if the U.S. (or British or German or Australian . . .) government put out a report placing economic growth ahead of mitigation while contradicting the science of the IPCC. Dr. Pachauri’s endorsement of a report that contradicts the IPCC indicates that issues of science and national interests are apparently universal.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Pachauri’s remarks are more evidence that the UN IPCC agenda is one of wealth redistribution, not climate.
Pachauri is advocating huge increases in CO2 emissions from the likes of China and India that will ensure that atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise, regardless of any emission reductions by developed countries – An odd position if he truly believes in a CO2 driven climate catastrophe and a high sensitivity of climate to CO2.
That said, the document outlines a good policy for India along with an observational climate assessment that should embarrass the biased UN IPCC.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Procrustean efforts to reduce policy decisions to simple rules (economic growth should always trump mitigation or vice-versa) are not much use.
India and the fully industrialized world are at different places on the Kuznets curve, so it’s completely reasonable for poor nations to put more emphasis on short-term economic growth and rich nations to put more emphasis on the long-term sustainability of their comfortable quality of life by mitigating environmental change their citizens find undesirable.
Basic economics tells us that adding $1000 per year to the average Indian’s income will produce a much greater increase in quality of life than adding $1000 per year to the average U.S. citizen’s (diminishing marginal utility of money).
Citizens of the U.S. can (and do) afford to sacrifice tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars per family to provide higher education for their children, whereas Indian and Chinese families cannot and do not make comparable sacrifices of present wealth to benefit future generations. [Credit where it's due: I've stolen this point from Mike Maniates] Citizens of the U.S. and other wealthy nations sacrifice enormous amounts of economic growth by purchasing luxury consumer goods (cell phones, televisions, etc.) instead of investing that money in shares (which would promote economic growth).
The U.S. and similarly wealthy nations can also afford sacrifices of current wealth for the environmental benefit of future generations—sacrifices poor nations cannot afford any more than they can afford plasma televisions, iPhones, Escalades, or Ivy League tuition.
The normative conclusion I draw here is that we should make decisions about the environment by looking at concrete trade-offs amongst opportunities and risks in specific times and places rather than trying to force all times and places into one decision based on abstract and absolute principles.
This conclusion echoes in many ways Nordhaus & Schellenberger’s argument in Breakthrough that global warming is indeed an impending catastrophe, but that we can’t fight it effectively until the poor nations of the world have acquired sufficient wealth and income to afford concern about future environmental hazards.
July 12th, 2008 at 5:34 am
I imagine that there has actually been quite a strong reaction to the government plan there in India. India has a very strong environmental movement which is at least as outspoken and politically active as ours in the United States.
Regardless of how the rest of the world behaves or legislates, however, the United States should be taking the lead. We have been in the lead on the polluting side for a long time.