Sunanda K. Datta-Ray | Can India deliver on 2070 Net Zero Glasgow pledge?

In the first major breakthrough since the 26th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP26) opened in the Scottish industrial city of Glasgow on November 1, 20 countries have agreed to stop funding fossil fuel projects abroad. This is expected to release $18 billion annually for clean energy. But though the conference’s India-born president, British Cabinet Office minister Alok Sharma, emphasised the importance of phasing out coal, India was not among the signatories. Neither was Australia, which said candidly that it wants to develop technology, not “wipe out industries”.

Interest stirred, however, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 12-minute speech promised that all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere would be retrieved for underground storage or absorbed by trees — achieving “net zero” emission — by 2070. But the applause was mixed with censure. After all, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had announced in August this year that all nations must reach “net zero” emissions by 2050 if global warming was not to exceed pre-industrial levels by more than 1.5°C. Most, including the United States and the European Union, have already accepted this target. Even the world’s top polluter, China, has promised to reach “net zero” levels by 2060, beating India by a decade.

India’s most outspoken environmentalist, Sunita Narain, director-general of the Centre for Science and Environment, warns that global warming presents the world with an “existential threat”. It isn’t something that governments can tackle individually. They must act together in pursuit of common goals like afforestation, arresting desertification, controlling rivers, preventing floods, and saving crops.

What they say and do must also be readily verifiable. At the same time, Ms Narain dismisses these targets as a “complete distraction” as she condemns the duplicity of the Western powers and the “noxious game” the Western media is playing. Their case is without equity because it equates long-standing hardened climate criminals (to coin a term!) with innocents and allows the West to pass off token payments for past (and present) misdeeds as aid or charity.

Oxfam has already exposed how loans for road building and other infrastructure projects are camouflaged as climate funding. India’s finance minister, Mrs Nirmala Sitharaman, had brought this up during her visit to Washington last month, pointedly asking: “So, what constitutes $100 billion?”

The absence of any reliable accounting mechanism is one major drawback in assessments by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Another is the opacity that makes it impossible to verify the Chinese claims regarding emissions. China’s declaration a few weeks before COP26 that it would end investments in overseas coal projects may have been only a PR exercise since China is the world’s biggest public financier of coal. If true, it could mean cancelling over 40 gigawatts of pipeline projects in 20 countries.

That includes at least nine coal-fired projects (out of 18 “priority” energy undertakings costing around $19.55 million) in Pakistan, which is one of the Belt and Road Initiative countries where coal is an important source of energy. Also unsolved at the time of writing is the mystery of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s complaint that the COP26 organisers did not provide a working video link for him to address the Glasgow meeting, and he had to send a written statement instead.

Despite Ms Narain’s reservations about targets, some say of India’s decision that it’s better late than never. India was the last G-20 country to declare a “net zero” emission date. Although 20 years behind the recommended target, it may be more realistic than a pie-in-the-sky promise like the rich nations pledge in 2009 to channel $100 billion annually to poorer countries by 2020. Mr Modi called it a “hollow” promise in Glasgow.

The G-20 — which includes 19 countries and the European Union — accounts for 80 per cent of the global gross domestic product, 60 per cent of the world’s population and about 80 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. However, while several members of the bloc are vulnerable to climate change, the group excludes a number of island nations and most of Africa. South Africa is its only African member. Small Island Developing States and Least Developed Countries (which have chosen Bhutan as their spokesman) are especially neglected.

As Australia has boldly acknowledged, growth can mean pollution. That is also why India has so far been reluctant to accept the “net zero” concept. However, there is a way out of this dilemma -- the rich countries which polluted the atmosphere in the past in their race to industrialise can atone for the spoliation by providing the money and technology for the developing world to achieve growth without pollution.

The question now is whether Third World leaders can deliver what they have promised. Seventy-eight per cent of India’s electricity is thermal and 70 per cent of its energy comes from coal and oil. Switching to renewables for 50 per cent of its power in less than 10 years, as Mr Modi promised in Glasgow, might have been easier if India had followed up on Dr Manmohan Singh’s 123 Agreement with US President George W. Bush and developed nuclear energy more seriously.

Mr Modi asked the richer countries to pay $1 trillion per annum. “When we all are increasing our ambitions on climate action, the world’s ambition could not stay the same on climate finance as was agreed at the time of Paris,” he said, implying that fulfilment of even his 2070 pledge calls for increased funding by the richer nations. To quote Ms Sitharaman again: “Funding is continuing to be a question of worry for many countries, as much as even the transfer of technology.” If they do make a commitment, will it be another hollow promise? If funding and technology are available, will the developing world live up to all the expectations?

Someone must ensure that both are honestly deployed for the right purpose on a global basis. There is no denying that the richer countries, meaning the Western powers, have historically cheated and exploited the Afro-Asian nations.

Tragically, the current world offers many instances of Afro-Asian rulers cheating and exploiting their own people. Foolproof inspection and audit is really the only way out.