#historicalresponsibility

This week leaders from all over the globe have come together in Paris for climate change talks. India’s position in such matters has traditionally been driven by a moralistic sense of justice, built on the culpability of advanced nations in the origination of global warming. It is contended that today’s developed countries became rich through the extraction and use of fossil fuels and that, as such, it amounts to little more than Western hypocrisy not to let the developing world do the same. India has become the leading voice in calls from the developing world for developed countries to shoulder the vast majority of the burden, with phrases such as ‘historical responsibility’ and ‘climate justice’ becoming common in Indian rhetoric. Developed countries, unsurprisingly, argue that each country must contribute.

There are echoes of neoliberalism and the Washington Consensus in advanced countries’ stance that developing countries should not be allowed to use fossil fuels unabated to grow their economy. Western international economic policy has for many years forced developing countries to dismantle protection for domestic industries and instead pursue policies of free trade and open markets. The hypocrisy of this position is abundantly clear, as many Western economies built their prosperity behind huge domestic trade barriers. This is what Ha-Joon Chang has referred to as Western countries kicking away the ladder. This time the ladder is made of coal and oil rather than trade quotas and tariffs, but it is being kicked away all the same. I can understand, then, India’s position on climate change – why should they not be allowed to walk the same path to prosperity that Western countries trod so successfully?

However, while the benefits for a developing country opening up to free trade are, to say the least, highly questionable, the imperative for action on climate change is beyond doubt. Therefore, while this moralistic position is understandable, it is potentially catastrophic. It is built on principles rather than pragmatism. And the world needs India to be pragmatic, for it is currently the third largest carbon polluter and is set to triple its coal consumption in the coming years, and unlike China, India is yet to set a date for its coal consumption to peak.

Moreover, India for its own sake needs to be pragmatic, for it is exceptionally vulnerable to the effects of climate change. It must take leadership in the fight to keep global temperatures from rising or face dire domestic consequences. For example, as Climate Action Network South Asia point outs, it is estimated that in India 700 million people’s survival is dependent on climate-sensitive agriculture. As such, India has a significant interest in seeing that these climate talks are successful, which affords cautious optimism that it is willing to make serious commitments. This optimism is bolstered by India’s recent commitment to investing in renewable energies.

Yet the situation in India is, as always, complex and environmental policy will always be viewed here through the narrow lens of economic growth. India claims that coal is crucial to its economy – an economy that, it is said, needs to grow at a minimum of 8% if sufficient jobs are to be created to keep its rapidly increasing population in work and out of poverty. As such, economic growth is the priority for Modi, not climate change.

Thus India’s climate change conundrum emerges. Does it commit to strict measures to quickly bring down its greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to secure sustainable, although probably much reduced, growth? Or does it continue to scale up its use of coal in pursuit of the fast economic growth it believes it is entitled to and will create the jobs its population demands?  

Since the Lima Summit ended in a business-as-usual fashion last year, The Delegation has been busy working to make the conditions possible for the decolonisation of Paris later this year and is sending a representative to the World Social Forum underway in Tunisia.

Last month, the international bureaucracy of the IPCC produced, the draft Negotiating Text for Paris, a scandal that resulted in the appointment of a new (acting) Chair for the organisation. and a vision of its future which admitted low participation from developing countries but did not reflect upon why that might be.

The Negotiating Text: Historical Responsibility Research

The draft negotiating text contains text that will be contested in the coming months, critical issues of committing to the non-exploitation of the majority of remaining fossil fuels and the resilient evasion of historical responsibilities remain, ‘up in the air’.

Commenting on the text, Duriana’s Science minister Pradip Yogiki invited scholars to burn the midnight oil to develop the evidence and conceptual basis for historical responsibility.

“In a world where carbon trading regimes are institutionally backed and trees are carbon banks, we need to articulate our positions with high quality science and data, focused on our needs vision and predicament. Its clear that the international NGOs and academic industrial complex are not interested. The data and ecological jurisprudence to support Historical Responsibility is critical at this moment in time.

Ideas and methods of quantifying embodied carbon, and carbon intensity of development have shifted the way we think and see of the problem. I am confident that we can understand and respond better with tools concerning the coloniality of emissions, the global fossil fueled development architecture and subnational emissions inequalities.

Humanities scholars often complain about being sidelined, I ask them to take this problem and grapple with it.”

WSF2015: Engaging the Eurocentric Left Internationale

Speaking to journalists from the Nature-Culture Times late last night at Durianopolis Airport on her way to engage the World Social Forum in Tunisia, Ping Delima Puteri justified the ecological and economic expense of what many are calling an NGO talking shop.

“Yes, the NGOisation of international climate activism is a problem. It privileges certain ways of talking, knowing and mobilising about important political matters. I know this because of my experience in the development industry, and how my political opponents have in the past labelled me an NGO facility girl. That was a hurtful thing to say but I understand where it was coming from.

I am going on our country’s behalf, and not to greenwash, whitewash, pinkwash or leftwash our message. We need to develop a presence there for the greater benefit, to improve each other’s respective platforms. There are plenty of powerful and not so powerful organisations out there who would prefer these conversations not to happen.