The New Nation - Internet Edition

Sudhirendar Sharma

The political controversy may have subdued its release but not its contemporary relevance! It is however another matter that the much awaited National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), released in June 2008, has turned out to be a listless compilation of predictable ideas that lack depth, vision as well as urgency. Making a case for the right of emerging economies to development for alleviating poverty, the action plan places economic development ahead of emission reduction targets.

It might disappoint those who believe in scary picture of climate change and consider emission reduction to be the panacea for reducing the impact of global warming. The Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change, under whose aegis the action plan has been drafted, is firm that the country would not cross the per capita emission levels of the industrialized west any time sooner. Consequently, the report makes no commitment to cut country's carbon emission at the cost of its projected development.

In doing so, the action plan gives a spin in favour of the rights of the poor to emission equity and climate justice. Why should an average US citizen spew 20 tons of carbon dioxide annually into the atmosphere when his counterpart in India averages only 1.2 tons? In the absence of a firm link between global warming and anthropogenic emissions, the action plan reaffirms individual's right to emit carbon dioxide (through enhanced energy consumption) for attaining a reasonable standard of living.

But there is more to climate change than per capita emission only! India's cumulative carbon dioxide emission at a whopping 1.5 billion tons, which is a quarter of the US's current emissions, can tip the climate balance against the poor. Whatever be the source of emissions, the glacial melting in the Himalayas is threatening to impact food and livelihoods security of over 1.4 billion people across the sub-continent. Projected sea-level rise, flash floods and unexpected droughts will only add to the woes of the poor.

At the current levels of per capita emission there is undoubtedly a strong case for promoting sustainable development but doing nothing about reining in emissions may not be a good idea as cumulative emissions do matter now, and in future too. The action plan seems seized on the matter but the prescription lacks scientific rigor. Not only does mission-mode of addressing climate concerns seems inadequate, the gap between `good intentions' and `planned actions' is incoherent and at times paradoxical.

The proposed eight missions focusing on solar energy, energy efficiency, sustainable habitat, water, the Himalayan ecosystem, green India, sustainable agriculture and knowledge gathering on climate change reflect bureaucratic inertia as well as political naivety. Can increased subsidy on petroleum, current obsession with coal and enhanced emphasis on hydro power (to meet the power deficit of 150,000 MW) be without altering existing land use and without compromising on country's green cover?

The suggestive nature of the report desists from identifying prevailing actions that may need to be either modified or summarily done away with. Further, to sustain the predicted eight per cent growth the country will not only have to increase its power-generating capacity but simultaneously build ecosystem resilience to cushion dramatic aberrations in weather too. The compensatory forestry is one wrong proposition that justifies fresh plantations, in lieu of more resilient natural forests with higher carbon sink ratio.

Such contradictions abound in the action plan, which reflects woefully little on the mechanisms to reduce carbon footprints. Unless our long neglected alternate energy sector is pepped up with additional funding and new technologies, the country's capacity to generate green energy (solar, wind & biomass) will remain robust on paper only. But if economic slowdown is anything to go by, funding for new investments in alternate energy and desire for technology transfer will inevitably remain squeezed.

Seemingly, compiled in haste the action plan lacks strategic directions on some of compelling issues like resource mobilization and technology transfer. Far from presenting a comprehensive approach to addressing the issue of climate change, the NAPCC adopts a sectoral approach that lacks vision and leadership. In nutshell, the report raises more questions than answers on the issue of climate change mitigation. Unless a public policy report of such significance is put into public domain it will remain yet another document of good intentions, tagged for the archive only.

(Dr Sudhirendar Sharma is a Delhi-based development analyst.)