Home >> History, Ideology & Science >> Science and Technology

     Email   Print 

Durban Fiasco: Options for Third World

Sudhanshu Tripathi - 1/13/2012

The recently held UN Conference on Climate Change in Durban could not blossom into full spirit. It simply agrees to engage into more talks to arrive at some kind of legally binding instruments ensuring imposition of emission curbs on all countries from 2020. It admits the fact that it is already too late to prevent the two degree Celsius rise which is the maximum limit for human beings on Earth to tolerate. The summit also witnessed the closing of not only the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 but also the idea of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR).This responsibility is recognised as a most important principle on which the Kyoto Protocol, negotiated under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is based.

As usual like prior summits, this summit also witnessed the refusal of industrialised nations to accept their industries as a major source of pollution and, therefore, their conceding to their primary responsibility in resolving the global environmental crisis. Such well- conceived strategy devised by the European Union since the Copenhagen Summit in 2009, has now virtually succeeded in side- lining the issue of CBDR in any future instrument, all with the active support of the US. Perhaps, as an eye wash for Third World nations, who are, in fact, the worst sufferers due to large scale pollution caused by the West’s industries, this summit declares for another legal instrument to be ready by 2015 and made operational by 2020. Known as “a Protocol, another legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all” will be of no use for these underdeveloped or developing economies because being devoid of the responsibilities determined by the CBDR doctrine.

Feeling the collective and united pressure of the Third World countries, the US and the EU have argued particularly since 1997, when Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, that today the World cannot be divided into two halves- developed and developing. Hence the developing economies like China (being the largest emitter in absolute terms, not per capita) and such other large countries like Brazil, South Africa and India be also made accountable to the legally binding emission norms. The EU and USA, together, managed to win the support of the Alliance of Small Island States, the Least Developed Countries (LCDs) and even South Africa and Brazil to its side while preparing for the final version of the final deal. The US has all along been outside of the Kyoto because it does not accept the CBDR. Hence it extended a somewhat calculated support, the future of which will be determined by re-election of President Obama who has already disregarded his earlier “green” pledges. Further, since Russia, Japan and now Canada are also pulling out, the Kyoto Protocol appears to be meaningless for all practical purposes even if the EU now onwards concedes to honour it for another five years after 2012.

Against this backdrop, when the West is obnoxiously insistent on its stand in not cooperating with the developing nations and concentrating only on their own industrial and commercial interests, what are the options before them (Third World). In fact, these developing countries, including India, are the most affected lot due to global warming, consequent upon rising greenhouse gas emissions. With continuing rise in the climatic temperature, the polar ice will melt down causing sea levels to increase, thereby drowning islands and other surrounding habitations. And glaciers will also melt to result into floods in plains disturbing common people’s living. Further, below earth water-level and rivers may fall to dry up. Also, the seasonal rainfall pattern will be adversely affected, engendering fertile lands to become barren fields and deserts and destroying agricultural business, the only option of survival for majority of people inhabiting the Third World.

As a result, there will be a large scale shifting of people towards better climate, particularly cooler areas, including better potable water, soil, food and also secure environment. Social amenities will degrade too, leading to eruption of unhygienic conditions and emergence of diseases and epidemics causing massive deaths of natives and animals. Also, social security and general law & order situation may collapse altogether to result into some sort of popular uprisings or civil rebellion. Such conditions will be very disastrous for developing countries like India, Brazil and South Africa which are relatively better placed as compared to their undeveloped neighbours, who may infiltrate into their better neighbours in search of sanctuary.

As for possible options for the Third World, the required cooperation from the West is something least expected now, and, therefore, must not be harped again and again. Since the West has no imperatives right now because they are the least affected by the global warming to concede to the demands of the Third World countries as they inhabit cool, temperate zones with a good supply of water. And, being richer and technologically far ahead, they can adjust to the changing climate in the best possible way. Another option is to make services, consumer items and energy sources too costly to afford so that there will be lesser consumption and consequent lesser pollution. But, the rich will remain mostly untouched by such price hike and will consume as usual.

Yet another choice is to search for a new form of energy which is cheap, easily available and usable everywhere. This may include a technological trick known as “geo-engineering”, that provides for fiddling with the planetary bio-sphere to cause carbon to degrade and temperatures to fall. But, it is still a very young science which can assure them an effective solution today. Again, the world community as a whole unite to save the planet ‘Earth’ as suggested by the Non-aligned Movement (NAM) in its IXth NAM Summit in Belgrade (Yugoslavia), although a wishful thinking yet one cannot escape this in last.

As a last option, “adaption” may come to rescue which holds that emission reductions are too little too late and, therefore, the only option is to create such material and social systems that may reduce the pain. In fact, this way the world will see a search for some viable political and scientific & technological solution that will stop and reverse the global warming.

These besides, what is urgently required is that the developing countries, particularly India being a prominent one and also as a founding father of the NAM, should unite to play a more responsible and proactive role and not just a reactive one as was seen in the Durban. The small islands nations and the least developed countries should be India’s natural allies in any future negotiations. To further ensure their support, India is not supposed to focus only on equity rather it should not demonstrate any commitment to combat climate change lest poor nations may be compelled to cut in reality their emission levels while the rich derive the maximum benefits as usual as they purchase carbon credits from the poor. But India in association with other likeminded countries must act for the best.