The Indian pavilion sponsored an event on December 4th at COP21 to discuss
the possibility of the carbon budget and how it could relate to development
goals in lesser developed countries. A
number of academics and NGOs presented research and led discussion on the
distribution of the carbon budget and how its expenditure can be used to end
poverty.
The carbon budget identifies the maximum amount of carbon emissions
that can be released into the atmosphere to stay below targets of global
temperature rise. This amount of carbon
emissions is then distributed between nations based upon the concepts of
justice and historical responsibility, dictating the amount of emissions each
nation is allowed to emit in the future.
Professor Jayaraman, from the Tata Institute of Social Science
in Mumbai, described the carbon budget is the “convergence of science and
equity.” Professor Jayaraman said that
the budget provides an objective framework for determining required action on
climate change. It leaves little room
for legal interpretation and provides a benchmark for accountability to ensure
action to stay within long term temperature goals.
The idea of the carbon budget is not found within the text
of the agreement in COP21, mostly due to resistance from developed countries. Negotiators from developing countries don’t specify
definite limits on carbon emissions or differentiate rights to emit between
developed and developing nations. They
recognize the historical responsibility of their nations, but vehemently oppose
legally binding obligations for mitigation and compensation. Instead they speak of reaching peak emissions
by a specific year and call for gradual reductions in net emissions for all
nations. This focus on peak emissions
and self determined reductions ignore the scientific reality of a definite
carbon ceiling, supports of the carbon budget say.
Developed countries account for the overwhelming majority of
historical emissions, used to rapidly develop during the industrial age, and
therefore would be allocated only a small share of the remaining budget. Models introduced by panelists also noted
that developed nations have already used a significant portion of their
prospective budgets or surpassed them entirely, putting developed nations in
the red and in need of dramatic carbon reduction and offset.
Developing countries, like India, would receive a greater
portion of the budget due to their historical lack of emissions and their needs
for development. India accounts for only
1.2% of historical emissions since 1890, while having 300 million people without
access to electricity. Indians view it
as their right to use the same carbon intensive resources to fight poverty and
modernize their economy that developed countries used, so long as their use
remains within the framework of the carbon budget.
Proponents of the carbon budget have correlated the use of
carbon and fulfilling development goals.
Based on the dual goals of reducing global temperature rise to 2 degrees
Celsius and achieving a Human Development Index score of .9 for the entire
world, each scholar outlined the necessary distribution of the remaining carbon
budget. Some relied upon the historical
trend of carbon emissions to development, while others used the difference in world
versus national historical emissions to calculate each nation's share of
potential emissions.
Critics of the climate budget plan point out that the
assumption that carbon emissions are necessary for growth is not necessarily
valid. They argue that countries can
fulfill development goals and combat poverty along a low carbon, renewable
energy path.
Supporters acknowledge this alternative, yet want to “keep
their carbon options open,” in the case of a lack of financial assistance to
make this transition. They argue that
countries should “stake their claim” of the global carbon budget to ensure
legal and moral right.
A number of questions remain regarding the feasibility of
the carbon budget model, including questions of legal framework, governance,
and implementation. Even if this framework
is not adopted in any formal agreement, it is vital to understanding the
developing country perspective on climate change mitigation.
