Global Warming? I'd call it Global Collusion!

Dear Editor (The Economist)

I found myself disagreeing with 'The Economist' on reading 'Better late than never'. Increasingly, the developed world is calling upon the developing countries to 'share' in reducing carbon emissions. But where was this camaraderie in 1970 when the western world was chugging away merrily on the back of the earth's capacity to assimilate all waste in to its pristine environment? As a citizen of a developing nation, I am tempted to ask for the same pristine air quality on which the developed nations enriched their economies. Instead, the developing nations, who, incidentally, held back rapid industrialization fearing resource exhaustion, have been bequeathed a world teetering at environmental collapse. Those who conserved resources in the decades of western industrialization are now being asked to go slow just precisely at the take-off point of their economies. The lesson to draw perhaps is 'if you need to rape the environment, be the first'!

The article dismisses the per-capita argument as nonsense. Theoretically, it may seem non-sensical to claim the right to degrade the environment as much as the 'Joneses' do. But when emissions are linked to industrial progress and development, nonsense it is not. The question of import is whether a human born in a developing country has the same right to 'the enjoyment of life' as someone born in the US. I suspect, deep inside, there are many who would rather not answer this question.

The average per-capita emissions figure hides large variations across income groups in the Indian society. A very large fraction of Indians cause minimal CO2 emissions. It is the industry and the nouveau rich who emit the most. The middle-class has no choice but to cause emissions from use of an inefficient transportation system thrust upon them (though overcrowded trains do reduce per-capita emissions!). The crucial question, as I see it, is whether we can raise the standard of living of the poor (and the middle class) without ratcheting up carbon emissions. The fact is the poor, especially the rural poor, as elsewhere, are in the unfortunate position of bearing the brunt of industrialization and Western capitalism. We do not grudge the West their party, but we do mind when the global warming they caused affects the lives of our rural poor and forces our government to shell out aid in millions in aid. The environmentalist in me says we should carbon tax all luxury goods and services indulged in by the rich - not to limit their enjoyment but to ensure compensation for the harm they cause to the environment.

On a tangent, I hasten to note the 'positive feedback' that characterizes urban warming - heat island effect - (the AC switched on to counter a hot day further increases outdoor temperature and reinforces the cycle). Power cuts caused by the surge in AC usage from urban warming are often targeted on the poor. This past summer, rural Maharashtra suffered innumerable, extended power cuts through the summer to fulfill the demands of the power-hungry Mumbai metropolis. Are we turning into a society in which the rich cause global warming and the poor suffer it? Capitalism with competition in a world of unequal opportunity eventually brings about slavery.

Another point I'd like to make is that the Indian economy, driven by FII money, is induced to move to GHG-intensive fuels like lignite to lower its cost and generate the EPS growth needed to sustain the monetary inflows for expansion. (Lesser emphasis on population control doesn't hurt volume growth or profit projections either!) Global warming has already caused a global shift in the production of carbon-intensive goods to developing countries not bound by the Kyoto protocol. I suspect any reduction in emissions from adoption of new technology will be more than likely washed out by the switch to dirtier fuels, the growth in population and import of emissions ('carbon leakage') from the developed to developing world.

Finally, there is an utter lack of economic logic in the policies adopted by the government ('cost-effectiveness'!). Going by the logic of net benefits, policies like population control, a CAFE-cum-vehicle turnover credit policy, green pricing of carbon-fuels (and foodgrains!), reduction of subsidies on carbon-intensive goods and services are likely to rank high. The international community must ensure that whatever carbon-trading mechanism we adopt, they do not preclude policies such as above. It would also be a gargantuan mistake to address global warming in isolation ignoring other issues such as urbanization, intra- and inter-country political and economic strategies (states competing for large, GHG-intensive projects by offering less stringent environmental standards), or poverty.

All said and done, I suspect the motive for India's shift in stance is green money from GEF, EPA or Al Gore or pension funds from California! Long live Global Warming!



--
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
Aparna 19 New, 30 Old Janakiram Colony
Arumbakkam, Chennai 600106
gangaprasad.rao@gmail.com
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar