The West is holding back on climate action

Countries in Europe, led by Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, are restarting their coal plants. Coal exports to Europe are increasing. Fossil fuels are making a comeback and countries are rejecting the European Union (EU) plan to cut natural gas consumption by 15%. Dutch, Polish and other European farmers are protesting emissions cuts from agriculture. Now with record high temperatures, renewable energy has nowhere to meet the rising electricity demand in summer or winter. Haste and misguided EU climate policies are coming home. While the current problems are being blamed on the Ukraine conflict and Russia in particular, they actually started when electricity prices started rising well before anything happened in Ukraine. Europe is staring at a recession and has an appetite for it Climate action is declining,

downgrading commitments

In the US too, the Senate and Supreme Court have hit out at climate action. And in America too, not only this year but since last year, fuel prices have started increasing. Due to this inflation is increasing. There is no energy security anywhere. Fossil fuels are making a quiet comeback, as America’s strength is its oil and gas industry. That is why we have just seen a ‘re-calibration’ of US policy towards the Gulf. America’s choice is between focusing on its economy and getting it on track for its people or Struggle against climate change And facing an angry electorate in November. The choice is clear.

So, coal, oil and gas are going nowhere in the developed world; They are really making a comeback. It was foolish to think that the world would miraculously transition, and especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, to renewable energy. The West had raced to reduce fossil fuels even before the advent of technology for renewable energy. Many developing countries are also facing unrest due to skyrocketing energy prices, which threatens their governments. The United Nations, unsurprisingly, continues to be a pillar of coal. In this scenario, we would do well to remember that it was Prime Minister Narendra Modi who created Ambitious pledge on climate change Last year at the Conference of the Parties (COP) in Glasgow. Furthermore, when India struggled to make the COP language closer to our current energy-mixing reality by calling for a ‘phase down’ of coal instead of a ‘phase out’, the COP president reportedly tried to ‘stop the tears’. struggled.

Developing countries should almost certainly do everything they can to catch up to developed world countries for their commitments and not inadvertently up their game in order for developed countries to back down from the commitments of the 2030 Paris Agreement. In fact, the EU’s climate action and energy commissioner, Miguel Arias Canete, helpfully indicated that the US could reduce its pledge under the Paris Agreement. The leaders of the G-7 met only to renegotiate their promises. Whom do they expect they will compensate if they all begin to lose their vows, which seems almost inevitable? Global South, of course.

And so, the game is on. Western countries have already begun to reinterpret the Paris Agreement and are trying to reduce their commitments. If they back down, what will happen to the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to below the 2°C limit (leave 1.5°C)? More importantly, what can developing countries do to prevent this backwardness by developed countries?

To begin, we need to understand how the concept of net zero is being cleverly misinterpreted. To bring this to the attention of the Global South, India, China and eight other countries from Africa, Asia and Latin America made a cross-regional statement on ‘Global Net Zero’ on June 7 at the United Nations on World Environment Day. I take the liberty of mentioning it to some extent.

Article 4 of the Paris Agreement defines ‘global peaking’ as follows: “To achieve the long-term temperature target set out in Article 2, the Parties aim to reach the global peak of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, assuming that Peking will be long-term for developing country parties.” The 10 Countries Cross-Regional Statement stated, “We believe that the term ‘global peaking’ is a conscious and considered in the text of the Paris Agreement, in full compliance with the fact With the recognition that peaking will take longer for developing countries. Developed countries, given their historical emissions, will have to peak first. So the reference is to the ‘global peak’ and not to the ‘individual peak’. From this, it logically follows that when parties in developing countries peak later than developed countries, they will also achieve net zero later than developed countries. Consequently, it is a logical conclusion of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement that when we consider net zero, we should only consider ‘global net zero’ and not ‘individual net zero’ for 2050. Any other interpretation would be contrary to paragraph 4. ,

The statement further said, “It becomes clear that a global net zero, where developing countries take longer to reach net zero, can only be achieved if developed countries reach net zero before 2050.” Therefore, developed countries should reach net zero before 2050. To achieve the overall global net-zero target around mid-century…” Therefore, the statement calls developed countries to achieve mitigation by 2050 rather than “net zero”. But calls for “net negatives” if they are serious about fighting climate change. In fact, the West needs to go net minus, not just net zero. Claiming that by achieving net zero in 2050, they will keep the temperature within a range of 2 °C, is a fiction.

Thanks to India’s efforts, the phrase used in both the G-20 and the Quad in the 2021 summit-level announcements is ‘global net zero’. We need to build on this understanding.

holding their feet in the fire

But the retreat has begun. One of the prime ministerial candidates in the UK recently said that the net zero scheme “should not bind people”. Another way of saying it, let’s forget about it for the present, shall we? We cannot forget about the present or the future. The “Global Stocktake” of the Paris Agreement will be used to assess the world’s collective progress towards achieving the long-term goals (Article 14) in 2023. In the current scenario, this stocktake can provide the right platform for developed countries to shift the burden of their mitigation commitments on to developing countries, knowing that they will not be able to meet their commitments by 2030.

And what is happening to developed countries’ plan to raise $100 billion per year by 2020 for climate action in developing countries? Can the global South transition to renewable energy without the real transfer of reliable technology? India stands as a ray of hope in renewable energy. It is time for all developing countries, especially small island developing states, to ensure that the developed world does not again back down from its commitments on mitigation. COP 27 in Egypt gives us the opportunity to catch their feet in the fire. The time has come for developed countries to pledge net debt. If we don’t collectively push for it, we will be collectively pushed back.

TS Tirumurti is the former Permanent Representative/Ambassador of India to the United Nations in New York