India defends itself from dubious demands at Glasgow summit

By the end of the two-week conference, it stood to argue for its right to burn coal in the short to medium term.

Viewed from above, these seem like two conflicting situations. One suggests that India plans to go green faster. Another suggests that India is unwilling to give up its dirty coal habit.

Neither is true.

The Indian delegation of negotiators at the conference, led by Union Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change Bhupendra Yadav, eventually secured the right for India to continue using coal for a short while compared to richer countries.

A factually incorrect narrative has been sold by some that India and China arose on the last day and snatched this concession for themselves, while many other green-minded countries, such as the European Union, cried foul. All bunk beds. In these negotiations, each country plays first to protect its medium-term national economic and energy interests and second to work against climate change.

The proposal to phase out coal by the UK Presidency (and host) of the conference was tabled long ago at the meeting. It was supported by small island and least developed countries, and supported by the European Union. India opposed this and demanded that not only coal, but all fossil fuels be phased out. And it must be done, as required by the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, with rich countries leading the way.

By all measures, India took a far more progressive stance. The European Union and many other developed countries balked at the idea because it would be difficult for them as well. They were fine as long as the focus remained on coal. Alternatively, India offered the option of phasing out coal, but rich countries took the lead and allowed developing countries to do so after a while. Many developed countries have other options such as shifting to gas to phase out coal. India does not. Some others initially did not depend on coal. No country has an alternative way to fuel its economy if oil and gas are also phased out in the short to medium term as part of curbs on carbon emissions.

The UK president tried a standard trick in the book. It offered developing countries the option of phasing out only coal without providing a longer time frame than richer countries to do so. It can be hoped that in the noise of the closing session of Glasgow, the resolution will be passed in favor of the European Union and other countries (which are not so dependent on coal), despite India’s objection. It has happened before. This time it didn’t happen.

Both India and China strongly objected. America was not too keen on the idea. The meeting stalled and the UK negotiated a change in the relevant paragraph to what is now called the Glasgow Climate Treaty. India backed by China and America has warned. It will be phase-down and not phase-out. Countries have to decide when they will do it based on their national circumstances.

In climate change negotiations, such a fight is always tough for large but relatively low-income developing countries like India to maintain their right to accelerate the green transition of their economies. Developed countries try to shirk their responsibilities of leading the transition and providing money, technology and capacity to poorer countries (something they are committed to and publicly promise to do, but behind closed doors). tend to withdraw). They had previously agreed to these commitments because they bear most of the responsibility for greenhouse gases that have gradually accumulated in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial era.

While poor countries continue to demand that rich countries live up to their promises, there is a solid understanding that large developing economies like India will have to mobilize their own resources to make this transition. US and EU will at best provide small changes that will be true for countries poorer than India. So, in practice, India will have to plan for a green transition by relying on its own money and seeing how private investment can be in its green economy.

In Glasgow, India won very little. But, thankfully, he too suffered very little damage. It was a good year of negotiations for India in terms of how these climate talks go. Especially when we consider a fake pass that Prime Minister Narendra Modi might have corrected at the start of the COP-26 summit.

The Prime Minister announced that “India will meet 50% of its energy needs from renewable energy by 2030.” It was either a false statement or a fraudulent statement. Many experts and officials now suggest internally that Modi meant that India would ensure that half of its electricity capacity by 2050 would come from renewable or non-fossil sources. Both are different goals. The latter is also a difficult target, but it is at least within the realm of possibility.

The lack of clarity within the government about the 50% declaration means that India has yet to officially submit its targets in writing to the United Nations. It will happen soon. Then India will know what exactly the Prime Minister has done for the rest of the world on our behalf. But, as can be assured by now, it is an ambitious but reasonable commitment.

Nitin Sethi is a member of The Reporters Collective, Partner at Land Conflict Watch and Media Lead at the National Foundation for India.