BackIndia saved itself from dubious demands at the Glasgow summit
The country did well at CoP-26 by foiling an attempt at forcing us to phase out the use of coal as fast as the rich world does
PremiumAt the recently-concluded climate change conference of 190-plus countries in Glasgow, India committed itself to one of the fastest expansions in power from renewable sources that any country has ever undertaken. It will take the country’s non-fossil energy capacity to 500GW by 2030.
By the end of the two-week conference, it then stood up to argue for its right to continue burning coal in the short to medium run.
On the face of it, these read like two rather contradictory positions. One suggests India plans to go green swiftly. The other suggests that India is unwilling to let go of its dirty coal habit.
Neither is true.
The Indian delegation of negotiators at the conference, led by Union environment, forests and climate change minister Bhupender Yadav, eventually won the right for India to keep using coal for a while longer than richer countries.
A factually wrong narrative has been sold by some that India and China woke up on the last day to throw a tantrum and snatch this concession for themselves while many other green-minded countries, such as the EU, cried foul. All bunkum. At these talks, every country plays to protect its medium-term national economic and energy interests first and work against climate change second.
The proposal to phase out coal was introduced by the UK presidency (and host) of the conference quite early into the meeting. It was backed by small island and least developed countries, and supported by the EU. India countered it by demanding that all fossil fuels be phased out, not just coal. And that this should be done, as the Paris Agreement and UN Framework Convention on Climate Change require, with rich countries leading the way.
By all measures, India took a far more progressive stance. The EU and many other developed countries balked at the idea because it would hit them hard as well. They were fine as long as the focus remained on coal. Alternatively, India gave the option of a coal phase-out, but with richer countries leading this and letting developing nations do so a bit later. Many developed countries have other options such as gas to shift to if coal is phased out. India does not. Some others do not depend on coal as much to begin with. No country has an alternative way to fuel its economy if oil and gas are also phased out in the short to medium term as part of a clampdown on carbon emissions.
The UK presidency tried a standard trick in the book. It presented the option of phasing out only coal without providing developing countries a longer time-frame than rich ones to do so. It may have hoped that in the din of Glasgow’s concluding session, with the EU and other countries (that do not depend so much on coal) in favour, the motion would get passed despite India’s objection. It has happened before. This time, it did not.
India and China both raised strong objections. The US was not too keen on the idea either. The meeting paused and the UK negotiated a change to the relevant para in what is now called the Glasgow Climate Pact. India, supported by China and the US, put in a caveat. It would be a phase-down and not a phase-out. Countries would get to decide when they do it based on their own national circumstances.
At climate change negotiations, for large but relatively low-income developing countries like India, such battles to merely retain their right to pace the green transition of their economies reasonably are always tough. Developed countries assiduously try escaping their responsibilities of leading this transition and providing funds, technologies and capacities to poorer nations (something they are committed to and publicly promise to, but tend to renege on behind closed doors). They had earlier agreed to these commitments because they bear the bulk of the responsibility for the greenhouse gases that have slowly accumulated in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial age.
While poorer countries continue to demand that richer countries live up to their promises, there is a sanguine understanding that larger developing economies such as India would have to muster their own resources to fund this transition. The US and EU will at best provide small change that will rightfully go to countries that are poorer than India. Therefore, in practice, India has to plan a green transition by relying on its own funds and looking at how private investment in its green economy may materialize.
At Glasgow, India won little. But, thankfully, it also lost very little. By the measure of how these climate negotiations go, this was a good year for India at the talks. Particularly when we consider a faux pass that Prime Minister Narendra Modi might have made right at the beginning of the CoP-26 summit.
The Prime Minister announced that “India will meet 50% of its energy requirements from renewable energy by 2030." This was either an incorrect statement or a disingenuous one. Many experts and officials internally now suggest what Modi meant was India will ensure that half its power capacity by 2050 will come from renewable or non-fossil sources. The two are rather different targets. The latter is also a tough one to meet, but it is at least within the realm of possibility.
Lack of clarity within the government over the 50% announcement has meant that India is yet to officially deposit its targets in writing to the United Nations. It will soon. Then India will know what the Prime Minister had really committed on our behalf to the rest of the world. But, as one can by now be assured, it is an ambitious yet reasonable commitment.
Nitin Sethi is a member of The Reporters’ Collective, a partner at Land Conflict Watch and the media lead at the National Foundation for India.
Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!
