The Economic Survey observed that the excessive preoccupation with meeting the 1.5-2-degree Celsius temperature target was putting impossible pressure on developing countries, compelling to make choices for which they were not ready and diverting the focus and resources away from the near term imperatives of improving the lives of the people.
The Economic Survey’s argument is that adaptation should get at least as much importance as mitigation. It is emphasising this because the impacts of climate change are already unfolding and becoming increasingly evident that the 1.5-degree target will be breached very soon. No wonder the global warming is transitioning into “global boiling” now.
It is noted that in such circumstances, rapid improvement in incomes and overall well-being of the people is the best insurance against climate change.
There is a near consensus in the scientific community that the frequency and intensity of climate impacts will manifold with rise in temperature. The 1.5 and 2-degree thresholds are not natural. There are no climate impacts that get triggered only after these limits are crossed, and not before.
Since climate impacts cannot be stopped, the world must focus on rapid development and adaptation to increase resilience, especially among communities that are at the greatest risk. Juxtaposing this argument: at these higher temperatures, the ferocity of climate impacts would increase so much that incremental improvements in resilience would be rendered useless.
There are uncertainties on both sides. It is here that sometimes it is proposed that the rich and developed countries do the mitigation while the developing countries focus on adaptation. However it is said than done.
The Economic Survey articulates that impatience of developing countries with the developed world’s hypocrisy. The US has the largest historical responsibility, but has been the biggest laggard on emission reductions. The developed bloc has not fulfilled any of their emission targets or their commitments to provide finance or technology to the developing countries.
Thus, the blame has been sought to be passed on to the rest of the world in the form of calls for enhanced climate action. In fact, experts have pointed out that international conferences on climate change are more about preserving the existing world order, instead of improving the climate action architecture and saving the planet from the catastrophic consequences of the climate change.
Therefore, these summits have become the oppressive apparatus of the rich and industrialised world by mandating transitions which are more suitable to them. For instance, if the discussion was pertaining to climate, then there would have been no need to junk Kyoto Protocol which was far more equitable ad effective to deal with climate change. But it was replaced by Paris Agreement which is considered to be more suitable and convenient for the the developed bloc.
Scientific organisations such as International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have strengthened the narrative and propounded agenda of the developed countries. Studies have also found out that how biased is IPCC’s assessment. IPCC has disregarded both the historical responsibility of the developed countries and the future energy requirements of the developing countries. They still want to pursue the gone case of meeting the 1.5-degree target, this translating into the mounting of pressure on the developing countries.
After the Economic Survey’s criticism of the established order on climate change needs to vibe followed by effective action.
While building its infrastructure, India could make it among the most climate resilient in the world. But the pace and the scale is not the fastest and the largest. It remains to be seen how India can build a model for sustainability. The Smart City plans which commenced almost a decade ago contain several elements of climate proofing, but still most of the cities are struggling with maintaining their drainage and sewage system.
India has been offering Mission Life, which calls for lifestyle and behavioural changes as a key ingredient of its climate change strategy, but it is still to become a movement. The over-consumptive lifestyles of the developed world has limited use when the rich in India also indulge in the similar pattern.
In essence, since the 1970s to 2024, environmental issues, today quintessentially known as climate change issues have taken the centre stage of several important forums and frameworks of various countries.
Despite being the locus of the global contemporary challenge, the world has just contemplated on the climate change issue, and not acted to fight it. Targets are achieved through relevant and timely actions and not just rhetorics and preachy messages spread via air conditioned rooms.
Comments