Madrid talks create a climate of uncertainty

Greta Thunberg (Image: Reuters)

Greta Thunberg and her ilk have returned empty-handed from the just concluded UN climate summit in Madrid.

Cocking a snook at the Swedish teenager’s passionate plea and the worldwide campaign of green activists as well as the concern of scientists, a handful of major nations resisted pressure to ramp up efforts to combat global warming as talks ended last Sunday with a partial agreement to ask countries to come up with more ambitious targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions in order to meet the terms of the 2015 Paris accord.

The COP25 — the formal name of the 25th round of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) — in Madrid was viewed as a test of governments’ collective will to heed the advice of scientists to cut greenhouse gas emissions more rapidly, in order to prevent rising global temperatures from hitting irreversible tipping points.

But, according to a Reuters report, the conference, in its concluding draft, endorsed only a declaration on the “urgent need” to close the gap between existing emissions pledges and the temperature goals of the landmark 2015 Paris climate agreement.

Though delegates from almost 200 nations endorsed a declaration to help poor countries suffering the effects of climate change, they did not allocate any new funds to do so. Media reports suggest that despite holding the longest climate talks ever in 25 annual editions, many delegates in Madrid resisted calls to enhance pledges to cut greenhouse gases next year.

The Paris accord established the common goal of avoiding a temperature increase of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century. So far, the world is on course for a 3- to 4-degree Celsius rise, with potentially dramatic consequences for many countries, including rising sea levels and fiercer storms.

Following the setback at the Madrid meet, environmental groups and activists have accused the world's richer countries of showing little commitment to seriously tackling climate change. Delegates who were present at the summit said Brazil, China, Australia, Saudi Arabia and the United States had led resistance to bolder action.

While India is one of the major emitters of greenhouse gases, it is not immediately clear what stand it took at the Madrid meeting. However, India has been a strong advocate of cleaner environment and way back in 2015 it had made three pledges at the Paris convention —  one, to lower emission intensity of GDP (or how much emissions would happen to achieve one unit of GDP) by 33-35 per cent from 2005 levels; two, create more forests so as to absorb 2.5 billion to 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and three, 40 per cent of installed capacity for electricity generation based on non-fossil fuels.

According to a recent UN report, India is well on track to meet its first and third targets by 2030. However, it is slightly off track in meeting its second target of increasing India’s carbon sink by 2.5-3 billion tonnes by 2030 compared to 2005.

It appears that a crucial area of disagreement during the Madrid talks was carbon markets. Some of the countries felt that they would prefer not to finalise rules on international carbon markets rather than to approve ones that could undermine efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

A carbon market allows countries, or industries, to earn carbon credits for emission reductions they make in excess of what is required of them. These credits can be traded to the highest bidder in exchange of money. The buyers of carbon credits can show the emission reductions as their own and use them to meet their own emission reduction targets.

A carbon market already existed under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the earlier climate agreement that will expire next year and get replaced by the Paris accord. In the last one decade, as several countries walked out of the Kyoto Protocol and no one was feeling compelled to meet their emission reduction targets, the demand for carbon credits had waned. As a result, developing countries such as India, China and Brazil had accumulated huge amounts of carbon credits. These credits are now in danger of getting redundant.

Brazil had been arguing that these accumulated carbon credits should remain valid under the new carbon market to be instituted. But developed countries claimed that the weak verification mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol had allowed dubious projects to earn credits. It seems India, which has accumulated 750 million certified emission reductions (CERs), is backing Brazil’s position on this.

As things stand now, India and other developing countries will perhaps have to wait till the Glasgow summit next year for the resolution of this issue.

The lack of agreement at the Madrid talks makes one thing obvious: while there is unanimity among scientists and environment activists about the effects of climate change and there is statistical evidence that things are turning for the worse, unless there is geopolitical consensus it is difficult to launch an effective fight against climate change. One encouraging point is that the European Union is trying to act as a bridge between the developed and developing nations. However, it will require a major diplomatic push — spearheaded by countries like India, which has a lot at stake — and a bigger leadership alliance, to deliver a meaningful outcome in Glasgow next year.

Abhijit Kumar Dutta is a freelance writer. Views expressed are personal.