USA should ratify
Doha Amendment to Kyoto Protocol for pre-2020, $500 million to Green
Climate Fund (GCF) for post-2020 not enough
Ratification of
mandatory Doha Amendment for pre 2020 period is a logical necessity, voluntary
Paris Agreement is just a post dated cheque
New Delhi: Towards
the fag end of his tenure and ahead of the next Conference of
the Parties (COP 23) to Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in November, 2017 in
Germany,
US President Barack Obama has transferred $500 million to the Green Climate
Fund (GCF), a small mechanism for climate change adaptation and renewable
energy projects in the Global South. This step is significant given the fact
that incoming President Donald Trump has promised to defund international
climate action.
Countries which
are genuinely committed to preventing climate crisis should join efforts to
ensure that nuclear power is kept out of the $ 100 billion/year Green Climate
Fund (GCF), a very small player in climate finance established five years ago
in Cancun, Mexico. After getting funds from the US President, GCF should be
made to create an accountability mechanism and persuaded to adopt an
information disclosure policy.
The fact remains
that Kyoto Protocol is the only international treaty on climate till 2020
attempts to implement the objective of the UNFCCC to fight global warming by
reducing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to "a level that
would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system"
(Art. 2). The Protocol is based on the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities: it puts the obligation to reduce current emissions on
developed countries on the basis that they are historically responsible for the
current levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The Protocol’s first
commitment period started in 2008 and ended in 2012. A second commitment period was agreed on in
2012, known as the Doha Amendment to the protocol for post 2012 period. It is
noteworthy that submit that USA has neither ratified the first commitment
period nor the second commitment period of the Protocol.
But the pre-2020
climate treaty has not come into force as yet. For pre-2020 period, out of 144
states whose ratification needed for its entry into force, so far only 75
countries have ratified Doha Amendment to Kyoto Protocol. Out of 37 the
countries with binding commitments, only 7 have ratified. This demonstrates the
sincerity towards climate action. USA remains a non-party to Kyoto Protocol of
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which was
adopted in May, 1992. Neither Doha Amendment to the
Kyoto Protocol or Paris Agreement guarantee the safety of the world's most
vulnerable but former is better than the latter for it makes provision for binding commitments and unlike the latter.
Kyoto Protocol succeeded in adopting precautionary approach but the Paris
Agreement fails because it does not satisfy the provisions of Article 3.3 of
UNFCCC. It reads: “The Parties should take precautionary measures to
anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its
adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage,
lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing
such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with
climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the
lowest possible cost. To achieve this, such policies and measures should take
into account different socio-economic contexts, be comprehensive, cover all
relevant sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and adaptation, and
comprise all economic sectors. Efforts to address climate change may be carried
out cooperatively by interested Parties.”
Civil society groups failed to support a small country
like Nicaragua in the Paris Climate Conference which raised its flag
questioning the autocratic change introduced in the final draft at the last
moment (from ‘shall’ to ‘should’) while adopting the 12 page long Paris
Agreement dated 12th December, 2015. The Agreement being a legal text required
application of basic legal knowledge by negotiators from India. In law schools
across the globe students are taught that “shall” is “mandatory”. The drafters
of legal documents are trained into the use of “shall” as it conveys “a duty
to” be performed. It conveys obligation.
Had “shall” been not important 76 pages of Words and
Phrases, a multi volume work of legal definitions would not have been devoted
to case laws around it. The word “should” does not express a legal obligation;
the word “shall” expresses a legal requirement.
Initially, Article 4.4 of the Draft Agreement read: “Developed country
Parties shall continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute
emission reduction targets. Developing country Parties should continue
enhancing their mitigation efforts…” This formulation aptly captured the
historic responsibilities of rich countries and differentiated responsibilities
of poorer countries. But disregarding the voice of a Central American country
like Nicaragua which is a member of Group of 77, succumbing to the USA’s demand
shall was substituted with should. India’s decision to maintain a deafening
silence when the voice of a fellow member from G77 was disregarded is contrary
to its stature. India should revise its position at CoP-23.
There was a total failure in comprehending that States have a fundamental
responsibility to preserve resources like the land, water, and air, which
belongs to the future generations. Its responsibility “predates statutory law”.
So far most civil society groups have failed to highlight it.
As chairperson of the Group of 134 developing countries (G77 and China
Group), Nozipho Joyce Mxakato-Diseko revealed that Intended Nationally
Determined Contribution (INDC) for mitigating climate change is “a
perversion of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities”
because it undermines the “legal obligation in accordance with historical
responsibilities for finance” accepted under the bullying influence of
USA and its allies.
It is quite outrageous that INDCs are not legally enforceable. The
paragraph 52 of the Decision of CoP 21 makes a categorical declaration that
Article 8 of the Paris Agreement which deals with the issue of addressing loss
and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change “does not
involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation.”
Although such announcement sets a regressive precedent in international
negotiations, given the fact Paris Agreement is not legally binding by
implication, this attempt to escape liability for loss and damage appears
unsuccessful. The 12 page long Paris Agreement dated 12th December, 2015
adopted by the countries that are Parties to UNFCCC, is an articulation of how
‘climate-inequality’ shapes the text of an international treaty supposedly
aimed at climate justice and for the protection of Mother Earth.
It may be recalled that the false solution of carbon trade and off setting
was introduced in the Kyoto Protocol at the behest of USA which had made it a
pre-condition to sign the Protocol. Notably, after diluting the Protocol USA
unsigned the Protocol. Unmindful of the fraud and corruption ridden carbon
trade projects, instead of discarding this fake remedy the Paris Agreement
makes way for global carbon market through Article 6 of the Agreement. It makes
space for “voluntary contribution” among countries in the implementation of
their emission reduction targets and “to allow for higher ambition in their
mitigation and adaptation actions”.
It creates a new class of carbon assets namely, “internationally
transferred mitigation outcomes” (ITMOs) for trading and “support for results-
based payments to implement policy approaches”. This new mechanism of UNFCCC
has been incarnated as Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM) as main
mitigation tool in place of pre-existing Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and
Joint Implementation post-2020.
What is charitably referred to as “dangerous anthropogenic interference
with the climate system” in the text of the UNFCCC is in reality an act of
industrial warfare against climate and its allied ecosystem whose impact has
become glaring. It is quite surprising that green house gas emissions from the
war industry which is reaping unprecedented profits amidst conflicts around
natural resources has not been included as one of the key sources of climate
crisis.
It is apparent that world governments have adopted Ostrich policy with
regard to climate crisis under the influence of undemocratic economic
organizations. Richer countries became prosperous and dominant due to carbon
emission since 1750. Between 1850 and 2011, USA, European Union, Russian
Federation, Japan and others contributed over 2/3rd of total global emissions.
Notably, developed countries have been outsourcing their carbon-intensive
industries to developing countries like India.
Admittedly, the estimated aggregate greenhouse gas emission levels in 2025
and 2030 resulting from INDCs do not fall within least –cost 2 degree C but
rather lead to a projected level of 55 gigatons in 2030. The Decision
underlines that in order to hold the increase in global average temperature to
below 2 degree C above pre-industrial levels there is a need for reduction of
emissions to 40 gigatons.
It is quite bizarre that while almost all the countries have stated their
commitments to reduce emissions from 1990 levels, USA has decided to count its
reduction in emission using 2005 as the base year. Thus, its commitment of
reduction is only 14% instead of 28% as has been claimed quite deceptively.
It has been estimated that India’s current per capita income is close US’s
per capita income in the 1890s. Like most developed countries where coal
remains unavoidable, India continues to argue that it will continue to use coal
as its primary source in its energy mix. Meanwhile, in a remarkable move, the share
of renewables in India has increased over 6 times between 2002 and 2015. India
has also announced that it will add 175 GW of renewable energy capacity (almost
equal to the total installed power generation of Germany) by 2022. This will
lead to avoidance of burning over 300 million tonnes of coal.
India cannot afford to be complacent citing emissions by top polluters
given the fact emissions of top 10 % of urban Indians is about 27 times the
emissions of the bottom 10 % of rural India that the carbon footprint of 1 % of
the India’s wealthy class is being veiled by 823 million poor class of the
country. Saving climate from poisonous market interference
Paris Agreement panders to the whims and fancies of commercial czars who
are obstinately commodifying and monetizing nature and interfering with climate
and allied ecosystems. The natural resource dependent communities are facing
unprecedented deprivation. This has created an episteme that blindly bulldozes
technical and market solutions as “real” solutions. Meanwhile, World Bank Group
feigned wished “to see the extent and detail on carbon markets” included in the
Paris Agreement that paves the way for “Carbon Markets 2.0”.
A new, non-market, climate finance mechanism is needed to support the
formalization and expansion of mitigation and technology transfer as a genuine
solution to combat the propensity of promoting free trade in carbon at the cost
of climate system. Climate talks remain relevant because fate of the
communities and global order is linked to the decision by the richest countries
to undergo mandatory fossil fuel de-addiction. But the Agreement fails to make
top polluters liable for “dangerous anthropogenic interference” and for endangering
human ecosystem which is the substratum for the existence of living beings.
In effect, despite the brave effort of a G77 country, Paris conference
failed to save climate and intra-generational and inter-generational equity
from the banks and markets that threaten our planet by integrating carbon
pricing policies in all sectors of economy. It failed to make ratification of
Doha amendment 2012 to Kyoto Protocol, 1997 developed under the UNFCCC’s
charter covering 2012-2020 time span a priority.
In such a scenario, even at this late stage India should take ethical
leadership by declaring carbon trading as a fake solution and by choosing not
“to pursue the reckless and environmentally harmful path to development” that
the developed countries have taken so far. It should have sought early
ratification of the Doha Amendment to the Protocol which is the international
law till 2020. But this law has not entered into force as yet. This exposes the
hollowness of the claims about leading “nearly 200 nations to the most
ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change” made by President
Barack Obama in his last State of the Union address in front of the US
Congress. The failure to apply “public trust doctrine” for safeguarding climate
system is quite evident.
India must
combat the propaganda of developed countries which have unleashed an
information war to submerge the primacy of Doha Amendment, the only existing
international climate treaty at least till 2020.
There is a
logical compulsion to undertake climate action to prevent irreversible global
changes in the pre-2020 and post-2020 period. India must explore the remedial
nature of the proposed solutions for combating climate crisis instead of
falling into the tarp of false solutions.
Ahead of the next Conference of the Parties (COP 23) from 6 to 17 November,
2017 in Bonn, Germany, under the Presidency of Fiji, India and other affected
countries should take recourse to “long memories” to mobilize G-77 countries to
put limits on ungovernable national and transnational business enterprises by
adopting principles that account for the imminent danger to the very substratum
of human existence.
It is evident that the dominant economic and political
ideology has constrained the actions needed to strengthen the provisions on
mitigation and in dealing with the impacts of climate crisis. Most donor driven
civil society groups and a section of media appear complicit with this
ideology. As a consequence almost all visible climate-related activities end up
being hand in glove with status quo that prefers to remain tight-lipped about Doha Amendment, carbon trade and false climate
solutions.
There is a
logical compulsion to seek ratification of mandatory Doha Amendment for the pre
2020 period in right earnest, voluntary Paris Agreement is just a post dated
cheque.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance
(TWA), Mb: 9818089660, 08227816731, E-mail: 1715krishna@gmail.com,
Web: www.toxicswatch.org
Post a Comment