Indian Perspectives: Equity and the Carbon Budget. Dec 4th

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.