With the opening of the climate confere­nce in Copenhag­en, India has an oppo­rtunity to cha­nge the climate of negotiations.

Surprisingly, Jairam Ramesh, the minister for environment and forest, decided to play for a draw with his statement in Parliament last week proposing voluntary reduction in India’s carbon intensity. Despite his strong assertion that India will not accept any legally binding international commitment to reduce emission, he proposed to reduce the intensity of the economy by a modest 20 to 25 per cent.

Just when the world of climate science was getting shaken by allegations of massaging of data to support claims of global warming, the minister acknowledged that Indians are among the most vulnerable to global warming, and then promised to announce domestic emission norms by 2011. Yet, he failed to drive home the point.

Between 1992 and 2005, India’s energy intensity, that is energy needed to produce a unit of GDP, improved by about 52 per cent, from 1,281 kg of oil equivalent per $1,000 of GDP in 1992 to 618 kilogram of oil equivalent (kgoe) per $1,000 by 2005. During this period, carbon intensity declined by 45 per cent, from a high of 3.15 tonne of CO2 per $1,000 to 1.73.

These figures are impressive, and comparable to the major economies of the world, which varied in 2005 from 0.44 tonne per $1,000 for the US, 0.252 tonne for Europe area and 2.44 tonne for China.

India’s GDP in 2008 was estimated by the World Bank to be $1,217 billion (current dollar). At 2005 energy intensity level of 618.46 kgoe/$1,000, this required total energy of 752,969 million kg of oil equivalent (mkgoe).

But in 1971 energy intensity was a high 2,259 kgoe per $1,000. To achieve the GDP level of 2008 would have required 263 per cent more energy than it actually did. Likewise, at 1981 energy intensity of 1,154, would have required 87 per cent more energy. And at 1991 energy intensity of 1,409, would have required 127 per cent more energy to attain the GDP level of 2008.

The improvement in energy intensity is mirrored in carbon intensity. At 2005 carbon intensity level of 1.73 MT per $1,000, the GDP of 2008 emitted 2,094,083,144 MT of carbon. But at carbon intensity levels of 3.08 (1971), 1.96 (1981) and 2.72 (1991) the GDP of 2008, would have emitted 79 per cent, 14 per cent and 58 per cent more carbon, respectively, than it actually did.

This suggests that between 1992 and 2008, effective saving in total energy used was 127 per cent and effective decline in total carbon emission was 58 per cent, for the 2008 GDP level. The decrease in carbon intensity between 1992 and 2005 was a whopping 82 per cent from the 2005 base, and energy efficiency improved by 56 per cent, according to an analysis of the World Development Indicators.

The minister’s defensive strategy became apparent, when invoking national interest he offered to do domestically, emission reduction and emission standard, while vehemently rejecting similar measures under any international legal mandate.

The dramatic improvements in energy use since 1992 were not a coincidence. Equally, there was little conscious effort aimed at such environmental goals. The real secret of this amazing transformation is the economic liberalisation initiated during this period, which unleashed greater competition, ushered in a relatively free trade regime and facilitated investment and technology adaptation.

Globally, however, decarbonisation of the economy has been going on for the past 400 years as societies moved from fuel wood to coal, oil and electricity, driven by economic needs, leaving a safer environment in its wake.

Given this track record, rather than seeking to balance economics and environment, we need to push ahead with economic reforms with much greater vigour. We need to recognise that cleaner and safer environment is like value added products, which become accessible only with higher economic growth and prosperity.

We need to recognise that the poor are vulnerable to natural hazards, were so in the past, are in present and will be in the future, because of their poverty, quite irrespective of any change in the planet’s climate. If we are really concerned about the plight of the poor, then it is the intellectual climate that we need to change.

Even at a nominal economic growth rate of 8 per cent annually, India’s GDP will rise 150 per cent from 2008 level to over $3,000 billion by 2020. At our current carbon intensity level of 1.73 MT of CO2 per $1,000, the total carbon emission could increase by 2.5 times. But if our carbon intensity falls to European or Japanese levels, 0.252, prevalent today, the total carbon emission would fall by a sixth. This is possible at current levels of technological development.

And this could happen irrespective of whether man-made carbon is the cause of climate change or not. It would happen because of the economic need to improve energy efficiency. This is the real “business as usual” model.

The minister will emerge as a true ‘deal maker’ in Copenhagen if he succeeds in changing the intellectual climate at the negotiations. Economic freedom generates gre­ater wealth and makes energy ac­cessible, and that in turn, enables people to better insulate themselves from the vagaries of nature.

A slightly longer version, with charts and graphs, is available on our website.

The writer is director of Delhi-based Liberty Institute, an independent think tank.

Julian Morris, International Policy Network, responds: “Over the past several months, Obama administration officials, their counterparts in the EU and several EU states (including Britain) have sought to persuade developing countries to commit to binding restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. At present, it appears that while China and India in particular are committed to reducing the carbon intensity of production, they are not willing actually to limit emissions per se. This is likely to be the major stumbling block to a global agreement to limit emissions.”

Read his full response: http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/12/06/copenhagen-climate-experts-forum/

(Courtesy of the TPA) From this morning till 18 December 15,000 delegates will descend on Copenhagen to work towards negotiating a treaty to succeed Kyoto and reduce emissions. However, even before the conference has begun, there have been questions over whether a new deal will be struck.  US President Barack Obama and Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen have conceded that the conference is unlikely to produce a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, and are beginning to make arrangements for a delay until the next conference, in Mexico.   British officials also do not expect a new deal, with binding restrictions, to be agreed this year.

In light of that and the large number of other international conferences that have been held this year, taxpayers around the world – who will be supporting the conference and the delegations being sent there – might question whether the conference will constitute good value for money.  This research note provides the first estimate of the total cost of the conference.

Key findings:

• A conservative estimate of the total cost of Copenhagen is £130 million ($215 million, €143 million).
• This estimate is based on the Danish government budget and the costs to participating governments of sending 15,000 delegates – including flights, accommodation, food, conferencing facilities and salaries paid to delegates while they are at the conference.  It is a conservative estimate as it leaves out costs such as the need for supporting work by staff in the home countries.

Download the full report: Taxpayers Alliance website (PDF).

Matthew Sinclair, Research Director at the TaxPayers Alliance, says:

The politicians and bureaucrats going to Copenhagen seem to think that its unlikely that theyll reach a deal and they know that even if they can get something signed, an increasingly sceptical public arent going to accept ever more expensive climate change policies. This means that a huge amount of money is going to be spent on the summit, and thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted to get there, just to give the delegates a good photo opportunity. Politicians need to stop this expensive jamboree and instead focus domestically on bringing down the ruinous cost to ordinary families of green taxes and regulations.

La “Coalición de la Sociedad Civil sobre Cambio Climático” busca educar al público sobre la ciencia y los efectos económicos del cambio climático. La Coalición está compuesta por 58 organizaciones independientes de la sociedad civil quienes comparten el interés de mejorar el conocimiento público sobre una variedad de temas de políticas públicas. Todos los integrantes son organizaciones sin fines de lucro, sin afiliación política ni gubernamental.

RESUMEN DE PUNTOS PRINCIPALES DEL ESTUDIO

Temas analizados en el estudio incluyen la agricultura, la ayuda externa, la salud y enfermedades, la adaptación y el desarrollo sostenible.

• Recortando las emisiones de gases de invernadero en las próximas dos décadas no es una manera eficiente de enfrentarse al cambio climático.
• No existe evidencia de que el cambio climático cause un incremento en enfermedades. Si las principales causas de enfermedades como la diarrea y la malaria son corregidas, el cambio climático no incrementará la incidencia de dichas enfermedades.
• La producción alimenticia ha crecido más rápido que el crecimiento poblacional en los últimos 50 años. Los avances tecnológicos permitirán que este modelo siga más allá del 2100, aun si las temperaturas promedio del planeta suben 3ºC.
• La escases de agua es un problema en muchos países, pero con un mejor manejo del agua y tecnologías modernas, el agua le puede llegar muchos más.
• Millones de personas en países pobres actualmente mueren por falta de desarrollo y tecnología.  Estos problemas generalmente han empeorados, en vez de aliviados, por la ayuda externa, la cual ha ayudado a mantener gobiernos irresponsables que le han negado a sus ciudadanos la posibilidad de mejorar su nivel de vida.
• Las restricciones globales a los gases de invernadero perjudicarían la capacidad de personas en países subdesarrollados para enfrentarse a los problemas de hoy así como también a los del futuro al retrasar el crecimiento y el desarrollo económico.
• En vez de estar solicitando restricciones de emisiones y políticas fallidas de “ayuda”, los gobiernos deberían de enfocarse en reducir las barreras al desarrollo económico y de adaptación: como las barreras comerciales y la descentralización de  la administración de agua y tierras.

Un Informe De La Sociedad Civil Sobre Cambio Climático