Mumbai: India’s development dilemma centres around a basic calculation: the carbon emission for an average Indian is only marginally higher than the carbon dioxide producedin flying one passenger from Tokyo to San Francisco.
In other words, while a commonly-cited fact is that India, after China and the US, is the third-largest emitter of carbon dioxide – the main gas implicated in warming the planet – globally, there is, seemingly, enough data to absolve India of special responsibility.
First, the background for this discussion:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere is at a record highat 404.11 parts per million (ppm), driving extreme weather events, including high temperature, storms and droughts, according to some studies. As IndiaSpend recently reported, the rainfall over rain-dependent India is becoming increasingly uncertain, unsettling the nation’s agriculture, economy and politics.
Another recent much-debated IndiaSpend story explained how Ind’a’s overwhelming dependence on coal was the real reason for the governme’t’s crackdown on the global NGO Greenpeace.
Some readers said India’s dependence on coal would be disastrous. Others argued that doing away with coal would be equally disastrous.
What should Ind’a’s path be? Coal-based or not?
Citing total emissions is misleading. Ind’a’s annual carbon dioxide emission is 1.93 billion tonnes, compared to 1.4 billion tonnes emitted by Japan, the wor’d’s fifth-largest polluter. Ind’a’s emissions are spread among 1.27 billion people; Jap’n’s come from 127 million, a tenth of Ind’a’s population. On an average, a citizen of Japan is responsible for seven times as much carbon dioxide as an Indian. There is no feasible way of restricting carbon emissions – short of stopping use of all fossil fuels-coal, oil and natural gas. These three fuels account for 86.6 percent of the world energy consumption.
Dirty and desirable: The role of coal
Among the three major fossil fuels, coal is considered the dirtiest. However, it is less than one-fourth the price of either oil or natural gas and more widely available. This is why coal is more widely used in lower-income countries such as India. As incomes increase, countries try to move away from coal as the development trajectories of western Europe and the US indicate.
India is also the wor’d’s third-largest user of coal.
Coal is a major bugbear for a number of environmental organisations such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. This has lead to confrontations such as the ban on foreign funding for Greenpeace in India.
India accounts for just 8.5 percent of the wor’d’s coal usage, while it has 17.5 percent of the wor’d’s people. China is the runaway leader, accounting for just over half the coal burnt globally.
And, so, to Ind’a’s limited options
As we explained, India has not been responsible for global carbon emissions in the past, and its current emissions are way below the needs of its population.
However, if India follows Chi’a’s route of development by burning more coal, the consequences for the planet – and India – are likely to be devastating. This will further worsen as other developing nations with large populations, such as Bangladesh, Nigeria and Pakistan, follow this route. The argument goes that as a responsible nation, India needs to move away from coal and increase the use of low-pollution energy sources, mainly nuclear power, hydropower, natural gas and renewable energy.
The problem with these sources is that they are costlier than coal and not as easily available. In many cases, such as renewable energy and nuclear power, the technology i’n’t freely available to India; much of it must be imported from the West. If India chooses more expensive forms of energy over coal, it will contribute to global common good – at its own immediate economic cost, as we will see on Saturday. (IANS)
