c

c 

The 15th Conference of the Parties (COP 15) of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen was meant to work out an international response to
climate change and develop a cooperative long-term plan to address climate change. The outcome
of the summit was a three-page ͚Copenhagen Accord͛. Termed by many as the ͚dead deal͛, and
bitterly criticized by many environmentalists, it fails to map a clear path towards a treaty with
binding commitments. I
 

     





and that future emission targets should take into account the historical ͚wrongs͛ of the
industrialized countries. In the wake of heightened concerns about rapid climate change and the
devastating impacts that it can have on India, the ͚per-capita͛ argument is increasingly losing force.

If the question is whether India will take on binding emission reduction commitments, the answer is
no. It is morally wrong for us to agree to reduce when 40 percent of Indians do not have access to
electricity," said a member of the Indian delegation to the recently concluded U.N. conference in
Bonn, Germany, which is a prelude to a Copenhagen summit in December on climate change. "Of
course, everybody wants to go solar, but costs are very, very high."

India's position goes to the heart of the vexing international debate over how quickly nations should
try to phase out carbon-spewing fuels such as coal and switch to renewable energy sources such as
wind and solar. In India, the debate has been cast as a choice between pursuing urgently needed
economic growth to reduce poverty and addressing climate change.







 
 
   
 



  This will hopefully put pressure on the United States of America and other
developed countries in European Union and other parts of the globe to announce major cuts in
carbon emissions.

India has not claimed anything in return from the developed countries. It is to be noted that per
capita carbon emission of India is much lesser than the United States of America and other
industrialized countries. India is willing to abolish the gaps. India is working for equity. No one should
be allowed more of carbon emission and no one should have compromise for the less.

Developed countries are major culprits of carbon emissions that cause global warming and climate
change and developing nations are the victims of that. This situation must not continue in
democratic world, according to the Indian stand.

Industrialized or developed countrieshave to cut their carbon emissions more than the developing
countries to bring the equity, as per Indian agenda.? Ñost of the European Union countries along
with the UK and United States of America are liable for carbon emissions in the past two centuries
during their industrialization processes along with some other countries. They have the contributed
lion's share of carbon emission in the environment historically. According to India, they are liable for
green house effect.

Developing countries likes of China, Brazil, Vietnam and India have started their industrialization
process few decades back and do not have a long history of major carbon emissions and green house
gases emissions in those days.

India wants a compensation by those countries who are liable for these

  c

Copenhagen 2009 the parties of the UNFCCC meet for the last time on government level before the
climate agreement need to be renewed.

Therefore the Climate Conference in Copenhagen is essential for the worlds climate and the Danish
government and UNFCCC is putting hard effort in making the meeting in Copenhagen a success
ending up with a Copenhagen Protocol to prevent ë
  ë and climate changes. The Climate
Conference will take place in the Bella Center. The conference centre is placed not far from
Copenhagen and near the Copenhagen Airport, Kastrup.

Governmental representatives from 170 countries are expected to be in Copenhagen inthe days of
the conference accompanied by other governmental representatives, NGO͛s, journalists and others.

The UNFCCC recognizes the principal of ͞common but differentiated responsibilities͟31 and
respective capabilities, which is based on sound principles of practicality and equity. The asymmetric
position of various players, characterized by divergent social and economic burdens justifies the
selection of differentiated reduction targets. It is the

   
of this guiding principle
of the climate change movement that has been the subject of much debate, with the developed and
the developing nations interpreting it in different ways to suit their convenience.

India͛s stand in the Conference was however very clear. India͛s international negotiating position
relies heavily on the principles of historical responsibility, as enshrined in UNFCCC.22 India has
always maintained the stand that the ͚right͛ to pollute the atmosphere should be apportioned to all
the countries based on their pollution. This ͚per capita͛ equity approach provides the foundation for
India͛s position on climate change negotiations. Using this gauge, India and China are the only
countries with population in excess of billions each and hence legitimately emit GHGs to a greater
extent than other countries with lesser population. But as their GHGs today are less than this
proposed allocation they could ͚sell͛ some of their ͚rights͛ to the industrialized countries.

The contribution of the developing countries to the climate change problem has been historically
small and their per capita emission of CO2 is significantly lower than those in the developed world
(Parikh et al., 1991). Yet, some of these developing countries are expected to significantly increase
their emissions in the next couple of decades (WRI, 1996). China and India account for 21% and 16%
of the current world population respectively and will need special attention in the future for the
success of any global CO2 emission reduction strategy. The developed countries might also find CO2
abatement in the developing countries to be less costly compared to their own domestic costs of
mitigation. The developed countries may be seen by the developing countries as a source of financial
and technological resources to help them control CO2 emissions without detracting from their
developmental objectives.


 



  
c 
The stand taken by the developing countries is that their overriding objectives include eradication of
poverty, enhancing economic well-being, improving public health, providing basic amenities and
improving infrastructure. These constraints make it difficult for them to focus their full attention to
climate change issues, while the developed nations face no such obstacles. They claim that the
developed nations bear a historical responsibility for having built up most of the existing stock of
Green House Gases (m    GHG͛s) in the atmosphere. According to them, climate change is
taking place not due to current level of GHG emissions, but as a result of the cumulative impact of
accumulated GHGs in the atmosphere. Developing countries argue that the final target should be for
each country to have the same pollution levels per person, or the same emissions per capita.

c c
c   c  
c 
On the other hand, the developed nations assert that to avoid the problem of global warming, even
the developing nations must undertake binding emission cuts. According to them, even if
industrialized nations stopped emitting greenhouse gases henceforth, the emissions rise in
developing countries would make it impossible to stay under a two degrees temperature rise under
a business as usual scenario. They believe that adherence to a per-capita approach for determining
emission levels is unfair as it rewards over-population and if India and China have the same per-
capita emission levels as advanced nations, the world pollution levels will shoot high enough to
destroy the Earth. Their main concerns are carbon leakage and exposure to unfair competitionfrom
developing countries through the delocalization of carbon intensive countries. The developed
nations assert that to avoid the problem of global warming, even the developing nations must
undertake binding emission cut. The argument is further substantiated by the fact that in absolute
terms, developing nations are rapidly contribution to GHG increase in the atmosphere, some even
higher than the emissions of the developed countries. The industrialized nations argue that the
industrialized / developing countries dichotomy with regards to actions taken to counter climate
change, which affects processes (negotiating groups) and United Nations decisions, has become
absolute in the status quo scenario. Looking forward to putting in a joint action strategy by 2050,the
definition of developing nations, constituting roughly three quarters of humanity, ͞group of
Countries not listed in an annex͟ dating from 20 years ago, simply cannot be continued to be
accepted as valid


 c   
The result of the Copenhagen Summit was a three-page, non-binding ͞Copenhagen Accord͟ that,
while not perfect, provide the beginnings of an agreement to tackle climate change. The Accord was
negotiated by around 30 parties including Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) and the
United States, but it was only ͚noted͛ by the Parties, as there was no consensus. The disputes and
disagreements could not be resolved, leading to the agreement being, in substance, a lowest
common denominator agreement. Concisely, the accord with regard to emission cuts states that
representatives of more than 190 countries deliberated for several days to produce an accord which
simply noted that the average world temperature rises should not exceed 2 degree Celsius (3.6
Fahrenheit), but without any binding commitments for the same.
 A summary of the important points of the Accord are as follows-

¢? It recognized the commitment of the member states to urgently combat climate

change in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities
and respective capabilities.
¢? The rise in global temperature limited to not more than 2°C, above pre-industrial
levels.
¢? Annex I countries are required to ͞commit to implement͟ economy-wide emissions
targets for 2020, and non-Annex I countries are required to implement mitigation
actions.
¢? The emission targets of Annex I countries, and their delivery of finance for developing
countries, are to be measured, reported and verified (ÑRV) and will be under
͞rigorous, robust and transparent͟ scrutiny accounting of both targets and finance
¢? Recommended that the collective financial commitment of the developing countries be
USD 30 billion between 2010-2012 and approach USD 100 billion by 2020.
¢? Adaptation to the ill-effects of climate change was an ancillary issue for which, it was
agreed, that the developed countries would provide adequate, predictable and
sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to developing
countries.

 c
 
 
c c c 
 

India͛s stand in the Copenhagen Summit was very clear. The bedrock of India͛s stand is that that the
planetary atmospheric space is a common resource of humanity and each citizen of the globe has an
equal entitlement to that space. According to India, the Copenhagen outcome must be concluded on
the principle of equity, recognizing that every citizen of the globe has an equal entitlement to the
planetary atmospheric resource. In furtherance of the principle of equity, India proclaimed that
comparisons in the polluting nature of economies should be seen based on per-capita emissions and
not the basis of emissions in absolute terms. India has therefore, strongly relied on the principles of
historical responsibility.

It must be noted at this point that as per The Centre for Global Development (CGD), 

  
 


    
. India has, in its national submission, called for multilateral
negotiations to focus on the long-term goal for stabilization, which would include mitigation actions.

This ͚per capita͛ approach provides the foundation for India͛s position on climate change
negotiations while negotiating how the burden of reducing greenhouse gases should be shared. This
approach has been continuously backed by successive governments in India including Prime Ñinister
Ñanmohan Singh. India has further proposed that India͛s per capita emissions will not at any stage,
exceed those of the developed countries. India͛s stand has not found acceptance with most nations,
with only Angela Ñerkel of Germany publicly saying that equal per-capita emission targets seems a
fair solution. And so far India and other developed countries have stuck to their stand that it͛s only
fair that all countries eventually have the same per-capita emission levels.

According to those who subscribe to the fairness approach, a climate change agreement would be
unfair if it made development more difficult for poor nations, especially because development is
designed to remove citizens in poor nations from difficult conditions, and to allow poor nations to
achieve something closer to parity with wealthy nations. A per capita approach would hence be the
most fair under this analysis, because it counts every citizen as no less and no more than one, in a
way that respects the moral irrelevance of national boundaries.