Rubens Born & Mark Lutes (Vitae Civilis, Brazil)
As activists, we have two interrelated and mutually reinforcing challenges convince our governments to shift to a low emission, non-fossil dependent development pathway, and strengthen the international climate change regime.
The coming into force of the Kyoto Protocol, with its absolute reductions targets for industrialised countries, removes a key obstacle to a serious discussion of the role of developing countries in a global regime. It is unreasonable to expect most developing countries to cap their emissions immediately after 2012, but it is time for them to engage in a serious, constructive and public discussion of what a just and effective global regime would look like.
For the first part of this international climate change roundtable, click here
Dont miss other articles in openDemocracys debate on the politics of climate change
Time is short to limit climate change to less than the 2 degrees Centigrade global average warming that is widely agreed to be a level above which impacts would be catastrophic. Currently, international negotiations are at an impasse. The intransigence of the United States administration and the difficulties some rich countries face in meeting their current Kyoto commitments are certainly obstacles to industrialised countries taking on deeper cuts in the next commitment period. These obstacles are surmountable if key southern countries engaged in a serious discussion about their own future role.
There are plenty of excuses to avoid this discussion, like the fact that southern per capita emissions are lower than northern ones, or that there is no proof that industrialised countries will meet their existing Kyoto commitments.
Globally, per capita emissions should indeed move towards convergence. But for developing countries to expand their emissions unchecked until their per capita emissions are the same as those in industrialised countries would be a strategy for suicide. And to wait for proof of compliance with Kyoto means leaving discussions of the next stage until 2012, which is far too late.
Among China, India and Brazil, Brazil would probably have the least difficulty in limiting and even substantially reducing its emissions. Around 70% of its emissions come from deforestation, and this could be controlled relatively easily without sacrificing the countrys prospects for development. Also, Brazil is much less reliant on fossil fuels for its energy needs, thanks to its hydropower and biofuels programmes.
But the context of the international regime and domestic politics makes it hard to convince national decision-makers to adopt climate change policies with the necessary long-term perspective. It looks more likely that politicians and others will favour a short-term policy that is, to let the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) play a role in building national initiatives, and only to talk about national commitments later, at the end of the first Kyoto period.
It is in Brazils own interests that policies to reduce national emissions for example, promoting the growth of renewable energy systems, reforestation and forest-protection measures should be implemented early. These initiatives can help developing countries to follow the sustainable development path more quickly. They will also reduce the unavoidable challenge for those countries in the next commitment period after 2012; and they should be framed under the principles and commitments of article 4.1 of the Kyoto Protocol, which obliges all signatories to prepare national inventories of emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases.
But to get there or anywhere close we will need to do a lot more to mobilise the people and civil society organisations to put effective pressure on government.
Clifford Polycarp (Centre for Science and Environment, India)
Among our three nations, Indias situation looks to me to be the worst. India is extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. We are increasingly contributing to the problem itself though our growing emissions without really attempting to do anything about it. And our politicians are not paying attention.
Like China, Indias demand for energy is growing rapidly. Most of that increased demand continues to be met through fossil fuels. Brazils dependence on fossil fuels is relatively low. The big problem there, as Mark and Rubens point out, is deforestation.
Indias situation is closer to Chinas. But it is heartening to note that there are senior members of the Chinese government who take the issues seriously and stress the need to take action in the interest of their own sustainable development. As Angel Green points out in the case of State Environmental Protection Agency (Sepa) closing some thirty illegal projects, there is action too.
I see few such signs in India. And even where there are positive developments, they are more likely to have been driven by courts than the government. Immediate economic gains are all that seem to matter.
It is very difficult for campaigners in India to change this. It is like fighting against a huge tide thats only growing bigger. My colleagues and I sometimes wonder if the Chinese have an advantage in taking a long-term view of a problem like climate change because they have some sense of permanence and stability in governance. In India, by contrast, we have a new bunch of people in government every few years, and they are mostly preoccupied only with short-term interests. I guess thats the price we pay for democracy.
Still, I remain optimistic because even here in India politicians are increasingly talking about climate change. They are beginning to understand the link between it and the exacerbation of immediate problems such as droughts and water scarcity. For them, it is these immediate problems that matter. And to me, in India, that remains the key challenge helping our politicians understand that link.
All three of our countries have far too many problems for politicians to deal with effectively. But if you convince politicians that the problems they do care about will only worsen as a result of climate change, then youve got their attention. Once we have a critical mass that understands these links, we will see more much more action.
Angel Green (China)
I agree with what Cliff says about making direct links. Recently I went to a meeting organised by Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau (BEPB) about the next five-year plan for air-quality control in the city. Beijing is going to hold 2008 Olympics. The city authorities promised the meeting that they would offer a green Olympics. People joked that Beijing will lose face if the athletes in the marathon all coughed because of the bad air quality!
In many developing countries, the issue of poor air quality is often both the strongest and easiest argument to approach the larger issue of climate change. But this can run into problems. In China, for example, the environment ministry supervises measures to improve air quality but it has little or no influence over energy policy, which is controlled by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). The NDRC also approves all the big construction projects in China. Bridging the gap between these two bureaus environment and energy is crucial if China is to tackle climate change effectively, both domestically and internationally.
One of the most significant recent developments in Chinese energy politics is the establishment of the new energy office. The head of the NDRC was appointed to lead this new office at a level equivalent to deputy prime minister. This is widely seen as a signal from the central government of their determination to tackle the energy shortage of recent years. It is still too early to tell what impact the new office will have on policy towards renewable energy.
There is a long way to go. For example, representatives from environmental bodies do not have a single place in the Chinese delegation to the Conference of the Parties (CoP) in international negotiations.
My organisation started our campaign on climate change about a year ago. We believe that for a developing country like China, helping find energy solutions is as important as raising awareness of climate change. Otherwise, the government will not listen to you or adopt your advice, and you will find it difficult to promote your idea among the public.
In China we call this walking with two legs: expose the problem and provide the solution. Last year, the government consulted us on the countrys first renewable energy law. This year we are working on the first wind power development scenario of 2020.
At the same time, we have noticed that while Annex I countries (the already rich industrialised countries that have signed the Kyoto Protocol) are promising to cut their emissions, they are also exporting old-fashioned energy generation technology to China with the support of governmental export credit agencies (ECAs). We are confused by this. If Europeans and others are really concerned about the future of the Kyoto Protocol, they should start with reform of their ECAs. Only when their policy is consistent will the world believe that the Kyoto Protocol is the serious first move we all need.
This article appears as part of openDemocracys online debate on the politics of climate change. The debate was developed in partnership with the British Council as part of their ZeroCarbonCity initiative a two year global campaign to raise awareness and stimulate debate around the challenges of climate change.
