Durban Census: Prime Concern was Economy, not Environment

by BIJOY KAR

The Durban Climate Conference’s show of consensus has a bigger reason. Despite the world media’s tendency, the din over Durban could not match the “going, going, gone” screams from Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and Co over the failing Euro-zone, and the snowballing crisis over the West going bust pretty fast. Surprisingly, the countries that once championed globalisation appear to be the victims of globalisation as a new power house emerges. The BRICS have arrived, despite the West’s allergy againsts Russia. While the developing block earlier asked the West to shoulder its burden of emission and pay for it, the drama in the world economy showcased that the West can no longer be held accountable for its past emission sins (as it has to take care of the economic problems of more immediate nature) while the East, despite national interest based on realpolitic, cannot duck the responsibility for future emissions—after all the economic engine has shifted from the West to the East.

In this context, the UPA Government of New Delhi has the unique job of selling to the Indian climate hawks that it has not surrendered the Indian position (backed by China, as usual). But as the West goes down, a new school of morality gains ground that seems to tell the world that the East, especially India-China-Brazil-South Africa, will naturally pay for their growing emission rate that corresponds with the growth rate.

Here is a problem. The debate of emission payments for the West was born under the context of historic low energy rate in the West. That has changed. After all, under the current circumstances, the West, like the rest of us, is fighting multiple battles for the rising energy price. With energy at US $ 100 per barrel or more and with possibility of further rise, the West will definitely not enjoy the kind of energy advantage of the Cold War era that led to the issue of taxing it with a separate emission burden.

In comparison, the BRICS countries are growing at the time of historically high oil price. So the earlier argument against the developed countries cannot work against the BRICS countries.

Argument 1: Since India and China are growing at the time of historically high energy price, it is unreasonable to charge them on the past lines.

Argument 2: Despite being in a disadvanta-geous position, both India and China need to “show leadership” in the trying circumstance of the world economy and make adjustments.

Evidently, India’s stand at Durban was rhetorical to keep the Third World votaries in good humour and the outcome was in keeping with India’s growing warmth with the West. But it showed most of all that India is solidly with the West as far as helping it in times of crisis is concerned.

•

HOWEVER, the bigger topic is the pathetic state of the multilateral approach to climate change. The base issue in view in Durban was that the collective or the UN approach has given way to the individual approach. Earlier this approach was utilised by the West to prevent the UN to be used by the majority of Third World countries. But now the same is being perpetrated by the West and the more powerful countries like the BRICS. As a result of the sidelining of the UN there is little way of judging countries on the basis of their policies and initiatives to prevent climate change. Despite proclaimed good intentions and declarations, a supra-national body is necessary to oversee the performance of countries in the field of climate control. Policing by the UN may not be harsh but overall that has a moral effect which needs to be reintroduced. But as we saw in Durban, downgrading the UN nowadays happens rather naturally.

Nevertheless, the core issue of Durban was getting countries to respect extension of the Kyoto Protocol. As of now, the Kyoto spirit seems falling apart. But countries need to maintain the legal rules and mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol. India has been one of the stars of the Kyoto Protocol and it is part of its “leadership role” in climate change. In the consensus that emerged in Durban, India showed once again that it will continue to provide the leadership role that it has provided in climate talks of the world over the last thirteen years since the emergence of the Kyoto Protocol.

Interestingly, the rhetoric from India helps China more than any other country. After all, thanks to the US $ 400 billion bilateral trade with the US, China will soon overtake the former as the chief emitter of carbon in the twentyfirst century. In other words, India’s rhetoric is shaped by its partnership with China and its global good Samaritan in Durban helps the West. What then is good for India?

Continuous supply of energy is good for India and Dr Manmohan Singh is not likely to behave irrationally that would create problems for the already frayed global energy dynamics of the world. That means, India will do only as much as the desire for energy security will allow it to do. On that count, India is on the same boat with the West. That is why it is not correct to condemn Dr Manmohan Singh or Jayanti Natarajan for not going the whole distance against the West at Durban. Given the global recession, Dr Singh, perhaps is aiming to swim through Durban somehow, so that he can fight the bigger war sometime in the near or distant future. The hope behind this approach is that the planet will still be there to be safeguarded till India and China and the rest of the G-77 settles the big fight with the developed world.