Climate change: The debate is not over

Print Edition

User Rating: / 1
PoorBest 

Op-ed

Saturday, 04 February 2012

Author / Source : Abdul Matin

The 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Durban, South Africa, concluded on December 11 but the dust has yet to settle.  After 14 days of marathon talks, all the participating countries agreed for the first time to have a legally binding accord on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions which will be ready by 2015 and effective by 2020. During this period, the European Union countries, which account for only 14 percent of the global emissions of greenhouse gases, agreed to continue to limit their emissions according to the legally binding Kyoto Protocol of 1997.
These countries do not, however, include any of the top five emitters accounting for more than 55 percent of the global GHG emissions.
The Durban forum also agreed to launch a “Green Climate Fund” to channel up to $100 billion per year to aid the poor and the vulnerable countries by 2020 without identifying the sources of financing.
The Durban conference abandons the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” which was accepted at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 and recognized by the Kyoto Protocol in view of the fact that the developed countries had been responsible for historic emissions of greenhouse gases and the per capita emissions in the developing countries are still relatively low.
The share of global GHG emissions in developing countries was, therefore, expected to grow to meet their “social and economic development.”
The developed countries, lead by the United States of America, argue that even though they were responsible for the major part of the historic emissions, developing countries are now  producing more than 50 percent of the global greenhouse gases and they must, therefore, share equal responsibility in reducing greenhouse gases.
To save the Durban conference from collapse, all the participating finally agreed to share the responsibility of reducing greenhouse gases under a common and legally binding agreement.
The developing countries are now divided into two groups. China (with total annual emissions now exceeding those of USA), India, Brazil, South Africa and other rapidly developing countries together produce about 47 percent of the global greenhouse gases whereas 100 least developed countries, including Bangladesh, produce less than 5 percent of the total global greenhouse gases.
GHG Emissions of some the least developed countries like Bangladesh are so low that doubling or trebling of their emissions will have practically no significant impact on global warming.
The annual per capita electricity consumptions of these countries, which represent the level of their economic development, are far below the world average. Under such conditions, how can these countries be equated with the developed and the rapidly developing countries for reduction of greenhouse gases?
The table shows the carbon dioxide emissions and per capita electricity consumptions of some selected developed, rapidly developing and least developed countries for the purpose of comparison.
As can be seen from the table, Bangladesh is nowhere close to the developed countries or the world average values in terms of the total GHG emission, per capita emission or per capita consumption of electricity.
Bangladesh and other least developed countries need to burn coal to generate cheap electricity for their rapid economic development.
If these countries are forced to bind themselves to a carbon reduction agreement, the cost of generation of electricity in these countries will increase to the extent that their economic development will be retarded. The abandonment of the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” is, thus, unfair and unacceptable.
It may be mentioned here that several developed countries namely, USA (without any binding commitment), Canada, Japan and Russia, have already pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol.
The rapidly developing countries like China, India, South Africa and Brazil are not bound to reduce their emissions as the Kyoto Protocol recognizes the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.”
If the major emitters of carbon dioxide do not follow the Kyoto Protocol and the Durban Agreement becomes effective by 2020, it is becoming increasingly doubtful whether the global warming can be restricted to the desired level of 2 degrees Celsius.
According to some German studies, “the world is on track for a 3.5 C (6.3 F) rise, spelling worsening droughts, floods, storms and rising sea levels for tens of millions of people.” The Durban agreement is, therefore, most likely to fail before it becomes effective.
The promise of the “Green Climate Fund” to channel up to $100 billion per year with uncertain sources of funding looks like a carrot to lure the developing countries into the trap of a legally binding  agreement which unjustly sacrifices the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.”
We must take care not to be misled by rosy promises which are likely to remain unfulfilled.
It is surprising that some respectable environmentalists are advocating (DS, January 24) for reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases by all countries “regardless of historic responsibilities” totally ignoring the interests of Bangladesh.
While the developed and the rapidly developing countries are fighting for the protection of their own interests, the least developed countries like Bangladesh, being most vulnerable to the consequences of global warming, must firmly propose for a review of the Durban agreement at the 2012 UN Climate Summit at Rio to relieve them from the binding conditions of carbon reduction until they reach a reasonable level of “social and economic development.”

The writer is a former chief engineer of Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission