India on Emissions Reductions: “Morally Wrong”
April 14th, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
India has been consistent on its position with respect to domestic emissions reduction — the answer is “no.” Yesterday’s Washington Post once again reaffirmed this stance:
“If the question is whether India will take on binding emission reduction commitments, the answer is no. It is morally wrong for us to agree to reduce when 40 percent of Indians do not have access to electricity,” said a member of the Indian delegation to the recently concluded U.N. conference in Bonn, Germany, which is a prelude to a Copenhagen summit in December on climate change. “Of course, everybody wants to go solar, but costs are very, very high.”
India’s position goes to the heart of the vexing international debate over how quickly nations should try to phase out carbon-spewing fuels such as coal and switch to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. In India, the debate has been cast as a choice between pursuing urgently needed economic growth to reduce poverty and addressing climate change.
More than 60 percent of India’s power is generated from coal. As India rapidly climbs the list of global polluters, analysts say coal will continue to fuel the economic demands of the country’s 1.1 billion people for two decades. But India has repeatedly said that it will not compromise on growth by committing to emission reduction goals set by developed nations, which it deems bigger culprits when it comes to pollution.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:52 am
Wait a minute. I understood that George W Bush was the sole individual person on the entire planet completely responsible for the total collapse of progress toward reductions in CO2 emissions world wide. And additionally, that his view of the situation was set completely and only by the money slipped to him by Big Oil, Big Gas, Big Coal, Big Fossil firms in the USA.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:01 am
China and India have the same self interest, and will ignore requests to restrain carbon dioxide release back into the atmosphere. With accelerating atmospheric CO2, if global temperatures continue to moderate, the hysteria of AGW theory will fade.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:12 am
Emission reductions are misanthropic. Is misanthropy immoral? Many environmentalists consider misanthropy to be the pinnacle of enlightened morality.
Forgive us Gaia for we have consumed.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:23 am
China will refuse also. This is why the senate voted 95-0 against Kyoto. Nothing has changed.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:55 am
This post, with the attendant comments, makes it very clear to anyone who doesn’t have his/her head stuck firmly in the sand that mankind cannot do ANYTHING to mitigate CO2; we will have to adapt to whatever changes occur because of CO2 (which I wager will be virtually none). So why are the AGW-fanatics still pursuing CO2 control? Clearly, it has nothing at all to do with temperature and everything to do with other agendae.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:59 am
So, is it “morally wrong” for poor people in Western nations to be stripped of their ability to purchase energy? Because that is the consequence of making fossil energy so expensive that we are forced to choose “green” energy.
April 14th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
There is a new book out by a Physicist at Cambridge David MacKay titled Sustainable Energy- Without The Hot Air. The book does the numbers on the alternatives to fossil fuels for Britain. It demostrates for instance that renewables can’t do it and dispenses with myths. It free and downloadable at http://withouthotair.com/. It could be some sober reading for politicians.
April 15th, 2009 at 5:14 am
The decision makers in India are totally correct when they worry about the standard of living of citizens and refuse to limit CO2 emissions. They can see the scientific data as well as anyone and understand that the CO2 as a meaningful driver of temperature thesis has no basis in fact. I read an article in one Indian paper that pointed out that the long term record as determined from the ice core analysis shows that in the past temperature changes led changes in CO2 concentrations, that there were two cooling trends in the twentieth century even as CO2 emissions were exploding and that there has been no measured warming in the atmosphere and oceans for a decade. I guess that Indians are too practical to buy into the AGW hype and have so many religions that the Church of Gore is not very appealing to them.
April 15th, 2009 at 8:14 am
Wow. Like RP Jr, I accept the scientific consensus that humans are a predominant cause of the current warming trend (no it hasn’t stopped in the last ten years). Seeing the comments here, I can see why RP Sr has turned comments off on his blog.
But I agree that the Indians are correct – it is morally wrong for them to deny their people access to electricity. The problem is that nature doesn’t care about human morality. Nature will not protect Indians from the serious consequences just because they didn’t start it. While it is too late to avoid all impacts, it is not too late to avoid the worst impacts, and both India and China need to be a part of the solution, if it is to happen.
If and when the US takes serious action, and Europe follows through to do so, then we will see if China and India decide that they need to do so despite the moral issues, because the impacts would otherwise be even worse.
I understand the logic behind RP Jr’s call for more focus on adaptation. The problem is that that will be used by some as an excuse to do nothing. But adaptation to serious environmental change can be brutal. See the recent articles in the LA Times and National Geographic about Australia – if you are at all open to the science. I hope the leadership in India is reading as well.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:22 am
dean says “I understand the logic behind RP Jr’s call for more focus on adaptation. The problem is that that will be used by some as an excuse to do nothing.”
Climate change and adaptation are a permanent feature of life on earth. Humans will adapt regardless whether there is a plan or not. People who make their living making plans don’t like to hear this or deny this reality but it is an obvious fact.
April 15th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Reid – It is a fact that there are many things on this planet that we must adapt to whether we like it or not. But I also am not a fatalist. We have done many things to be more comfortable and safer. Floods are inevitable, but that doesn’t keep us from building food-control projects. Fires are inevitable, but we seek out fire-resistant building materials. Climate change is now inevitable, but we potentially can impact how strong it will be, and it is in our interest to minimize it and thus minimize the amount that we need to adapt to. Or should the folks in Fargo have skipped building a big sand-bad wall, and adapted to flooded houses instead since floods are a part of life on earth? The scale is different, but the concept is the same.
April 15th, 2009 at 11:44 am
PS – Roger Pielke Jr seems to have a focus on making people take a look at how much mitigation is possible, and be realistic. That’s fine in principle, though basing it on past “decarbonizing” makes no sense.
But whatever amount of mitigation is possible, it should not be used – in my opinion – to suggest that we just treat climate change as fate just because climate change is a permanent feature on earth. I don’t get the sense that that is Roger Pielke’s attitude either.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
dean says “Climate change is now inevitable”. Wrong. Climate change is ALWAYS inevitable. I am a New Yorker which up until 5,000 years ago was under the Arctic ice cap. It will again be under the Arctic ice cap but probably not before it is under many feet of water. The notion that we can control the climate by cutting with CO2 emissions is the great absurdity of our day. We laugh at the witch hunts of the 17th century while we conduct our own latter day witch hunts.
Climate change is a fact that neither skeptic or alarmist is in denial about. Those that believe humans can significantly control the climate are not in denial, they are delusional. Those that believe they can stop Manhattan island from submerging under the oceans that have been rising for 20,000 years by changing humans consumption patterns will be laughed at by future history.
April 15th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
By the end of this century, India and China will account for more atmospheric CO2 than all the developed nations combined.
That’s total emissions, from the pre-industrial times through the present day even WITHOUT reductions in emissions by developed nations.
India and China must at least agree to biding future reductions in emissions, even if these reductions won’t have any practical impact for several decades.
Without such an agreement, reductions by developed nations will be utterly
pointless and the United States, in particular, will have no chance of mustering the political will to make meaningful change. [Even with commitments from India and China, I am skeptical.]
April 16th, 2009 at 7:08 am
dean,
One might infer from your statements that Nature runs contrary to human morality. This is a fact with which I would agree. There is no point to morality other than to raise humanity above the basest, darkest, most selfish impulses of natural, animalistic behavior.
It is also interesting that you have skirted an important, and often ignored point. This is, that India, China and, indeed, the rest of the world must accept the hardships associated with fewer emissions in order to avoid the hardships associated with AGW. So far, we have not been provided with evidence that the possible benefits of mitigation outweigh the benefits of increasing emissions. The Indian governement is of the opinion that they do not. You can say that people will starve or perish in floods, but they have been experiencing that for decades/centuries. They can already see that access to energy immediately improves life for their people. The benefits of mitigation are much less clear, especially because they are not immediate. How do you recommend convincing them?
April 16th, 2009 at 11:29 am
“So far, we have not been provided with evidence that the possible benefits of mitigation outweigh the benefits of increasing emissions.”
The IPCC reports provided an economic analysis that came to the conclusion that it will cost less in economic growth to respond to AGW than it will cost to do nothing now and just adapt. See also http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_2649_34361_40691458_1_1_1_1,00.html .
“The Indian governement is of the opinion that they do not.”
Or at least that with elections pending (they are going on now), they could not ask this of their people – and hope to win the election.
I openly acknowledge that many people, probably most people, everywhere, not just in India and China, are not yet convinced of the need to take serious proactive action to address AGW. They will give it lip service, but they have other priorities. I don’t see this as an ignored point or a skirted issue. It is a central issue and is discussed constantly. Most people evaluate risks based on their personal experience, and this is out of the bounds of our personal experience.
It is the goal of myself and many of us who accept the opinion of the overwhelming percentage of scientists (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_of_global_warming if you didn’t when I posted it elsewhere) to address this lack of resolve and change it.
For example, by posting the above link on wikipedia that demonstrates that there is no major scientific academy in the world that is in disagreement with the IPCC, I hope that some readers of this blog may see that the consensus is real. By reading the recent article in the LA Times at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-climate-change-australia9-2009apr09,0,7128426,full.story , I hope they will see that climate change isn’t really just about drowning polar bears. You also might want to check out their editorial at http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-ed-australia11-2009apr11,0,2780288.story
The National Geographic April issue also had extensive coverage of the situation in Australia.
“How do you recommend convincing them?”
I would note that when hardship hits people, they seem to want something specific to blame. The idea that some disaster is just random and normal is not a concept that people like to accept. As such, as the compost hits the fan, there is a good chance that people will come around. As the LA Times article and editorial shows, it is happening in Australia now. The question is whether that will be in time given the likelihood of the growth of positive feedback mechanisms in the coming years.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:45 am
On the benefits of mitigation vs. costs see my Congressional testimony here:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2521-2007.17.pdf
April 17th, 2009 at 5:41 am
dean,
This excerpt from Roger’s testimony to some extent addresses my thoughts on this matter:
“It is true of course that a family that does not focus on its utility bill may find themselves in deep trouble. So a focus on the utility bill is indeed important, but that cannot be the entire focus. With respect to the current political debate about the world’s future focused on energy polices, the analysis presented in this testimony based on the assumptions of
IPCC indicates that our focus needs to be much broader — on the path of development itself. A discussion of greenhouse gas mitigation cannot substitute for that broader discussion, but should be a part of it.
The IPCC WG II SPM recognizes the importance of a discussion of development…”
Perhaps another decade of development will benefit the Indian population more than if they immediately adopt restrictive mitigation strategies. In the West, we often forget that so many people don’t have a utility bill to worry about, because they don’t have access to energy.
You imply that it is a bit shady for the Indian politicians to succumb to political pressure in an election cycle. What is political pressure but the will of the people. I suppose the people might not be wise enough to choose the best path for themselves. Or maybe this healthy “conservatism” balances the more radical push to change.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Tamara – Maybe so, regarding India’s energy policy. But these infrastructure policies have a long lifespan. Decisions made now affect the infrastructure in use for many decades. I’ve spent a lot of time in India, living and working there for a while, so the situation in India is not a mystery to me. I also know that India’s poor are very susceptible to the impacts of climate change, and decisions that might help them now could contribute to great suffering in 10 or 20 years.
I do think it is the moral responsibility of those countries that have contributed the greatest amount of the CO2 above pre-industrial levels to get this ball rolling. I think that India and China then need to follow suit. Exactly how quickly and exactly how to balance the urgent short-term needs of Indians with climate needs is not something I claim to know.