P. HARI In San Francisco
For nearly a decade after it was set up in 1988, the reports of the inter-governmental panel on climate change (IPCC) went unnoticed by the public. Back then, climate change was not a priority, even for those who set up this body. Only in 2003 did the IPCC reports draw attention from the general public. Even then, despite its soft rhetoric, the IPCC was not completely in-sync with the positions that several governments, including the US, held. Now, the IPCC has come up with its harshest report yet and, surprisingly, it has found acceptance with all governments.
The third instalment of the fourth IPCC assessment report has many things that are likely to upset governments. But it is this one that really matters. It highlights what we should do to mitigate global warming. It emphasises, for the first time, the need for lifestyle changes — always a bone of contention. It also recommends nuclear energy as a means of mitigating climate change, another raw nerve for many. “It is naive to believe that developing technologies is the only answer,” says IPCC chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri, in his introduction to a report that he himself termed was “stunning in its brilliance”.
The IPCC had to work hard to push its report past governments. The US and China had reportedly forced it to tone down many sentences in its previous report on adaptation to climate change. That was not surprising because these countries would have to make the maximum changes in their projected paths of development. In this report, however, the IPCC makes it clear that we are in ‘deep trouble’ if we continue on our path of development. It also says, in no unambiguous terms, that cutting greenhouse gases would not slow down development. In fact, it may even spur growth marginally.
In essence, IPCC’s recommendations are all common sense. They include efficient automobiles, renewable energy technologies, energy efficient buildings, efficient industrial equipment, increased storage of carbon and increased forestation. Then there are suggestions for lifestyle changes, but these cannot be quantified. Very ambitious mitigation strategies would reduce growth marginally by around 0.1 percentage points. The report also stresses that all countries would have to contribute to the effort, a statement that makes Indian lawmakers, in particular, sit up and take notice.
There is a clear link between what we are doing now and what will happen in 30 years in terms of climate change. Since 1970, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased by 70 per cent. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from around 200 parts per million (ppm) to 380 ppm, which has increased average global temperatures by 0.7 degree centigrade. At current emission rates, we are expected to double the pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels to 450 ppm within 35 years. There are many scientists who feel that this is the maximum limit sustainable by the ecosystem. Some even feel that 450 ppm itself is too high.
What we do now depends on where we want to stabilise the CO2 levels after three or four decades. This would also depend on how much the world warms. Many countries have different upper limits on temperature increase. European governments, for example, do not want the temperature to increase beyond 2 degrees centigrade.
Limiting the increase also helps to reduce the damage due to unforeseeable factors, since we do not know when the system would stop changing incrementally. J. Srinivasan, professor of atmospheric sciences at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, says “We do not know, at the moment, when the changes would become non-linear.” That would mean stabilising at around 450 ppm, which was seen as a very difficult task now, if not impossible. What the IPCC report says is that this is possible, and it will not cost much if everyone plays a role in the fight.
Lifestyle changes that the IPCC describes are not major sacrifices. Several IPCC lead authors mention examples such as turning down the air-conditioner in summer, or reducing the heating and wearing warm clothes in winter. Or, as Pachauri gave as a personal example, eating less meat (the meat industry uses much energy). All these efforts add up. Yet, the IPPC stresses that we are not likely to stop using fossil fuels for a long time. Also, since the IPCC’s role is to analyse and not recommend, it is up to the governments to decide what to do.
This is where the importance of the IPCC reports lie. As Pachauri stated while releasing the report, it is expected to have an influence on the upcoming United Nations Climate Conference. In the past, the IPCC has been accused of pandering to governments and toning down its reports. Scientists have also accused it of reticence, even in pure scientific terms. Yet its reports, particularly the one on mitigation, carry weight because all governments endorse them. Thus, the first step in acting to mitigate climate change is to have produced a report endorsed by all governments that says such mitigation is possible.
So, what is in store for India? While speaking at the conference, the IPCC's co-chairs made it clear that all countries would have to contribute towards mitigating climate change. India would be no different, particularly because India’s emissions are among the fastest growing in the world. So far the country has resisted being brought into the emission control regime, thinking that it would have to compromise its growth. Now, the IPCC says mitigation measures will not affect growth, so the world's attention will focus firmly on how India will shoulder its responsibilities. In many ways, this could also set an example for other developing countries to stop ignoring their responsibilities towards help fighting the problem.
Of course, passing the right laws that will give us these changes will be the big challenge for policy makers.
