Global warming is a global problem, yet huge disparities exist between those who are responsible for the problem and those who will suffer its effects. Most notably, developing nations will suffer from global warming more than developed nations for two reasons: 1.) they lack the infrastructure to protect against the damage and 2.) they tend to inhabit more vulnerable, less forgiving geographic spaces. To understand this relationship, I will focus on India, a developing nation rising in the global economy, and its struggle to negotiate the international territory of greenhouse gas legislation.

The Inequalities of Climate Change:
In April, the International Herald Tribune published an article on the inequalities of global warming. It states:

“In almost every instance, the people most at risk from climate change live in countries that have contributed least to the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases linked to the recent warming of the planet.”

Furthermore, “the countries that face the least harm - and are best equipped to deal with the harm they do face - tend to be the richest.” According to these arguments, when it comes to climate change, the developing world will suffer the most, meaning people living in the developed world should not only be worried about the effects of global warming upon their own lives but also upon the lives of others across the globe. Global warming is, without a doubt a global issue.

As mentioned above, these inequalities exist for two reasons. First, the developed world possesses the infrastructure necessary to combat climate change. Not only do individuals have the mobility and the amenities to alter their environments (e.g., air conditioning, transportation, etc.) but people living in the developed worlds live in different environmental conditions in general. According to research reported in the Herald Tribune,

“The large industrialized countries are more resilient partly because of geography; they are mostly in mid-latitude regions with Goldilocks climates - neither too hot nor too cold. Many enjoy gifts like the thick rich soil and generous growing season of the American corn belt or the forgiving weather of France and New Zealand.”

These temperate, moderate climates mean people living in developed regions are less likely to face the extremes those living elsewhere in the world will face.

Sources of economic livelihood also contribute to the inequalities of climate change. In the post-industrial economy of the United States, agriculture comprises a meager four percent of the national economy whereas the African nation Malawi relies on agriculture for ninety percent of its economy. Drought and temperature fluctuation will impact Malawi’s agricultural industry — as well as its economy — much more noticeably than it will affect the United States (1). Agriculture-driven economies face direct threats due to global warming and its accompanying climate changes.

On the other side of the global warming debate looms the possibility that some northern nations (namely, Canada, Russia, Mongolia, parts of the U.S. and most of northern Europe) might actually benefit from global warming. To counter some of the anti-global warming rhetoric, the Statesboro Herald points out some of the benefits of global warming:

“Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Rust Belt cities might stop losing snowbirds to the South. Canadian farmers could harvest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand. Mongolia could see a go-go economy.”

However, tempering its argument a bit, the article suggests these “benefits” will not outweigh the consequences of global warming. Canada, for example, may see a rise in its agricultural production, but the arctic north will lose its polar bears. The overall effects of global warming will certainly be negative.

In a wicked twist of fate (and one that developing nations seem reluctant to accept gracefully), the infrastructure that will protect developed nations from the looming threats of global warming —air conditioning to help the elderly endure the heat; construction materials to prevent coastal cities from rising sea levels; irrigation to help crops survive hot, dry summers; the ability to produce more food than is needed to feed its citizens — is also responsible for creating the global warming issues developing nations will face. Since global warming stems from the impact of cumulative GHG emissions, the infrastructure upon which America’s industrial past was created and upon which our post-industrial economy is sustained is largely responsible for the droughts that will destroy developing agricultural economies like that of Malawi.

India’s Precarious Position:
India has assumed an interesting position in recent international debates on climate change. As summarized quaintly by the Indian Economy Blog, “India’s position on climate change is simple…

1. Climate change has been caused by the developed world, which must bear the costs of abatement and mitigation.
2. India is not a significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter, and
3. It will not accept binding emission cuts, without compensation, as that would conflict with the overarching goals of economic growth.

Currently, however, India ranks among the world’s top five largest producers of green house gases (2), and its GHG emissions will increase rapidly as its population, economy and infrastructure continue to grow. However, India has repeatedly argued that it should not be held responsible for a problem largely created by rich, industrial nations. India and China are emitting larger and larger amounts of greenhouse gases annually, yet, as the Herald Tribune points out,

“they remain a small fraction of the total human contribution to the atmosphere’s natural heat-holding greenhouse effect, which is cumulative because of the long-lived nature of carbon dioxide and some other heat-trapping gases.”(3)

In fact, of the world’s top ten cities with the worst air pollution, China and India are both home to four (the other two on the list include Cairo, Egypt at the top and Jakarta, Indonesia at number seven). To an outsider, these statistics suggest that while the bulk of climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions may have been produced by industrialized nations, China and India cannot play innocent on this issue. They must face the potential crisis now, while it is still manageable, instead of waiting until climate change becomes too problematic to reverse.

In 2002, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), published a report on Climate Change and India’s “Perceptions, Positions, Policies and Possibilities” (.pdf). Included in the report were a number of statistics and projections highlighting the problems of global warming and also the complexities that arise when one encounters a first-world problem in the third world. Many of the quick fixes that may work to reduce emissions in the developed world (such as fuel-efficiency, unplugging appliances, etc.) will not work in India where a majority of the population lacks the infrastructure that would afford it such luxuries, or even very basic necessities. The “dark side” of energy efficiency, according to the OECD, leaves a large part of the world’s population without some or all of the following first-world necessities:

• Electricity for appliances and indoor lighting
• Fuel for cooking (which forces the use of biomass sources rather than fossil fuels)
• Fans for cooling or devices for heating
• Basic infrastructure such as schools and hospitals

And these depravities are certainly sitting in the back of Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh’s mind when he argues that developed countries should take responsibility for their greenhouse gas emissions, especially while India, China and the rest of the developing world struggle to provide basic necessities for their citizens. “Due care,” he argues, “must be taken not to allow growth and development prospects in the developing world to be undermined or constrained”, and this is precisely the stance India took at the recent Group of Eight summit in Germany last month. As Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon told the BBC, global warming was largely created by the industrialized nations; therefore, those nations should assume more of the burden for fixing the problems. Unfortunately, this argument displeases many from within and without India. Himanshu Thakkar, South Asia coordinator of Dams, Rivers and People, calls India’s position a “stonewalling and negative approach” Likewise, one of the authors of the Indian Economy Blog calls this stance “ethically indefensible, logically and economically inconsistent, and worse - a wasted opportunity”. Those who see environmentally friendly practices vital to the success of the global economy and the future of our world, must side with these arguments and argue against India’s refusal to act. Considering it will face innumerable problems in the future (4), India should be leading the way to combat climate change.

Possible Solutions?:
The current climate change debate takes two factors into consideration: 1.) human life and 2.) economic growth, and the two are intimately connected. As the OECD report suggests, climate change debates should “centre around the risks to the developing countries” precisely because “the developing countries…are more vulnerable to the impact of climate change.”(5) Of course, the best solution will strike a balance between the two. Though the U.S. will feel fewer effects of climate change, that does not mean it should be allowed to continue polluting at its current rate without regard for the environment. Likewise, though India played a smaller role in contributing to current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, that does not give it immunity from current efforts to curb carbon emissions. However, India’s economic development and its general lack of infrastructure should be taken into consideration when discussing possible solutions to the problems of climate change. Though the problem is largely historical, developing nations (with the help of developed nations and international organizations), should be at the forefront of environmentally-efficient initiatives now, not at the back of the line, hoping to catch up later down the road.

If India is going to emerge as a leader in the global economy, then it should look to industrialized countries for inspiration on developing sustainability and preserving its limited resources for the future (not to suggest that the West is particularly good at preserving natural resources, but rather to suggest that India should prevent future problems those countries are encountering/going to encounter by taking action now). Already, companies that do business in India and China are feeling the effects of air pollution on their profit margins, and that does not bode well for either nation (6).

It will not be easy for India to manage economic growth with environmental sustainability but that does not mean such progress is impossible. As the OECD report argues, carbon trading schemes offer a unique opportunity for India. At present, while India lags behind other developed nations in terms of per capita carbon emissions, it will benefit from selling its carbon surplus by receiving an inflow of capital (for development projects) (7). Once India becomes a carbon producer, it will be in an economically favorable position to buy carbon. (However, to those of us who think preserving the planet should take precedence, would rather see India and China find ways to avoid becoming carbon producers in the future. Any scheme that envisions surplus emissions in the future, seems unrealistic unless significant efforts are made now to reduce overall emissions worldwide.)

Balancing the needs of development with the threats of climate change will be difficult, and India’s leadership — both public and private — will have to weigh a variety of pros and cons when considering various initiatives to develop the nation further and to reduce carbon emissions. Hence, the solution I propose is three-fold:

First, the India government must make a firm commitment to supporting environmental sustainability in all future endeavors — including by not limited to the construction of schools, hospitals and other institutions in rural and urban areas. Integrating environmentally-friendly architecture into new projects is much easier than converting old or out-dated buildings into modern marvels. The government should begin environmentally friendly development now and it should start making plans for undoing the damage already done.

Second, the government must consider alternative fuel sources. At present, India’s industry relies heavily on coal, which is not only environmentally damaging but also nonrenewable. The government must therefore commit to support future development using renewable sources of energy such as solar power and wind power. It should take as its model Africa, where solar power has provided numerous opportunities for environmentally-friendly developments (e.g., solar-powered flashlights) as well as the Industrialized nations, where businesses are beginning to incorporate environmental sustainability into their business models.

Third, the Indian government should urge industrialized nations to create firm caps for carbon emissions and to institute a carbon trading/buying scheme (from which India could benefit). At present, the damage caused by years of Industrial pollution is accumulating and without resolute action from developed and developing nations, the problem will continue to escalate. India must be willing to accept the consequences for unrestrained carbon emissions by forcing other governments to adopt international protocols that will ensure a safe and equitable use of global environmental space in the future.

Once those three commitments are in place, India may begin to pave her path to the future, complete with economic growth, human security and environmental sustainability.

References and Further Reading:
(1) Statistics courtesy of The International Herald Tribune
(2) The rankings differ according to which site one references. This article says India is fifth, while this article shows India at number 4. (The statistics may vary according to whether the EU is considered a single entity or separated according to individual countries.)
(3) According to The International Herald Tribune, “China may be a powerhouse now, but it has contributed less than 8 percent of the total emissions of carbon dioxide from energy use since 1850, while the United States is responsible for 29 percent and Western Europe 27 percent.” Read more…
(4) The BBC reports, “A recent report by environmental experts has warned that India will be one of the countries worst affected by climate change, and could face widespread famine and drought. This will affect its food production and cause large-scale devastation, the report says. ” Read more…
(5) The OECD report also admits that India holds a privileged position among developing nations due to its rich soil and divers climate; however, that does not mean it is immune from the effects of climate change. (p. 17)
(6) In an article on air pollution in Hong Kong, the The International Herald Tribune shows some of the economic repercussions conducting business in a polluted city can cause: “The bad air is repelling foreign executives and costing companies more than $90 million a year in medical costs and lost productivity,” Read more…
(7) The average U.S. citizen emits 5.5 tons of carbon dioxide gas per year while the average Indian citizen is responsible for only .25 tons of CO2 emissions, according to the OECD report published in 2002.

WHAT'S NEXT?

Subscribe via RSS or Email  ::     ::  Leave a comment

Bookmark to: