Handout by Iqbal Singh Sandhu

Contemporary Global Concerns: Environment

The environment is often viewed as the archetypal example of a global issue. This is
because:
 Environmental processes are no respecters of national borders.
 They have an intrinsically transnational character. As countries are peculiarly
environmentally vulnerable to the activities that take place in other countries.
 Meaningful progress on environmental issues can often only be made at the
international level.
Nevertheless, international cooperation on such matters has sometimes been very difficult to
bring about. This has occurred because of following reasons:
 The environment has been an arena of particular ideological and political debate.
Disagreements have emerged about both the seriousness and nature of environmental
problems and about how they can best be tackled.
 Environmental priorities tend to conflict with economic ones.
 Can environmental problems be dealt within the existing socio-economic system, or is
this system the source of those problems? Such debates have been plaguing the global
environmental agenda.
Central issue on the global environmental agenda is climate change. However, climate
change is not the only issue on the global environmental agenda. Another issue of major
concern is energy security.

How and why environment developed into a global issue?

Although forms of environmental politics can be traced back to the industrialization of the
nineteenth century, however, environment did not become a significant national or
international issue until the 1960s and 1970s.
Green politics or Ecologism has emerged as a backlash against industrial society. It is a
political ideology that is based on the belief that nature is an interconnected whole,
embracing humans and nonhumans, as well as the inanimate world. Human fulfilment
is possible with closeness to nature not by domination.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 1

Following are the pioneering works of early green politics:
 Rachel Carson’s The Silent Spring (1962), a critique of the damage done to wildlife
and the human world by the increased use of pesticides and other agricultural
chemicals.
 Murray Bookchin’s Our Synthetic Environment (1962) which examined how
pesticides, food additives and X-rays cause a range of human illnesses, including
cancer.

This period of the 1960s and 1970s also saw the birth of a new generation of activist NGOs,
ranging from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth to animal liberation activists and so-
called ‘eco-warrior’ groups – campaigning on issues such as the dangers of pollution, the
dwindling reserves of fossil fuels, deforestation and animal experiments. From the 1980s
onwards, environmental questions were kept high on the political agenda by green parties,
which now exist in most industrialized countries.

The environmental movement addresses three general problems listed below:

 Resource problems – attempts to conserve natural materials through reducing the
use of non-renewable resources (coal, oil, natural gas and so on), increasing the use
of renewable resources (such as wind, wave and tidal power), and reducing
population growth, thereby curtailing resource consumption.
 Sink problems – attempts to reduce the damage done by the waste products of
economic activity, for example, reducing pollution levels, increasing recycling, and
developing greener (less polluting) technologies.
 Ethical problems – attempts to restore the balance between humankind and nature
through wildlife and wilderness conservation, respect for other species (animal rights
and animal welfare), and changed agricultural practices (organic farming).

The first major international conference to be held on environmental issues was the 1972 UN
Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE) at Stockholm. The Stockholm
conference also led to the establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), which is responsible for coordinating the environmental activities of states and
international organizations to promote better regional and global environmental protection.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 2

The 1987 Brundtland Commission Report, Our Common Future, emphasised on the
concept of ‘sustainable development’, which subsequently provided the dominant
mainstream framework for understanding and addressing environmental issues. The
Brundtland Report defined Sustainable development as development that meets the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs. It contains two key concepts:
 The concept of need, in particular the essential needs of the world‟s poor, to which
overriding priority should be given.
 The concept of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social
organization on the environment‟s ability to meet present and future needs.

The Brundtland Report prepared the way for the 1992 Rio ‘Earth Summit’ (officially, the
UN Conference on Environment and Development, or UNCED), which was held 20 years
after the landmark Stockholm conference. Earth Summit resulted in conventions on climate
change and biodiversity and established the Commission on Sustainable Development
(CSD).

Tragedy of the Commons

Garrett Hardin used the idea of the „tragedy of the commons‟ to draw parallels between
global environmental degradation and the fate of common land before the introduction of
enclosures. He argued that if pasture is open to all, each herder will try to keep as many cattle
as possible on the commons. However, sooner or later, the inherent logic of the commons
will remorselessly generate tragedy, as the number of cattle exceeds the carrying capacity of
the land.

As Hardin put it, ‘Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all’. The idea of the „tragedy of
the commons‟ draws attention to the importance of the ‘global commons’, sometimes seen as
‘common pool resources’, and of threats posed to these by overpopulation (a particular
concern for Hardin), pollution, resource depletion, habitat destruction and over-fishing.

Is the ‘tragedy of the commons’ an unsolvable problem?

Hardin himself argued in favour of strengthened political control, especially to restrict
population growth, even showing sympathy for the idea of world government.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 3

Liberals, nevertheless, argue that the solution is, in effect, to abolish the commons by
extending property rights, let market price mechanism control resource usage. However,
privatization has made environmental problems more complex.

Others, particularly socialists and anarchists, reject the „tragedy of the commons‟ altogether.
Historical evidence suggests that common land was usually successfully managed by
communities. Moreover, Ecosocialists argue that selfishness, greed and the wanton use of
resources are a consequence of the system of private ownership, not their cause. Community
ownership, by contrast, engenders respect for the natural environment.

The Gaia hypothesis

The Gaia hypothesis was developed by James Lovelock. It advances the idea that the Earth
is best understood as a living entity that acts to maintain its own existence. Lovelock named
the planet Gaia, after the Greek goddess of the Earth. The basis for the Gaia hypothesis is
that the Earth‟s biosphere, atmosphere, oceans and soil exhibit precisely the same kind of
self-regulating behaviour that characterizes other forms of life. Gaia has maintained
‘homeostasis’, a state of dynamic balance.

The idea of Gaia has developed into an ecological ideology that conveys the powerful
message that human beings must respect the health of the planet, and act to conserve its
beauty and resources. It also contains a revolutionary vision of the relationship between the
animate and inanimate world. Lovelock has suggested that those species that have
prospered have been ones that have helped Gaia to regulate its own existence, while any
species that poses a threat to the delicate balance of Gaia, as humans currently do, is
likely to be extinguished.

Climate Change

Climate change is not only the most prominent global environmental issue, but it is also,
some argue, the most urgent and important challenge currently confronting the international
community.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 4

From the 1990s onwards, environmental debate increasingly focused on the issue of ‘climate
change’ brought about through global warming. Initial concerns about climate change had
focused on CFC emissions, but this shifted over time to the impact of so-called ‘greenhouse
gases’.

One of the consequences of the Earth Summit was the establishment of the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the first attempt to stabilize greenhouse gas
concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced)
climate change. It suggested that greenhouse gases should be stabilized at safe levels on the
basis of equity and in accordance with states‟ ‘common but differentiated responsibilities
and respective capabilities’.

The clear implication was that developed states should take the lead. Responsibility for
reporting on the implementation of the UNFCCC was invested in the International Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), established in 1988.

The most significant international agreement on climate change was the Kyoto Protocol to
the FCCC, negotiated in 1997. The significance of the Kyoto Protocol was that it set
binding targets for developed states to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by
2012. The targets were designed to reduce total emissions from the developed world to at
least 5.2 per cent below their 1990 levels. It entered into force in 2005 and commitment
period ended in 2012. However, the Kyoto Protocol also had significant limitations listed
below:
 In the first place, the targets set at Kyoto were, arguably, inadequate in terms of
achieving the Protocol‟s goals of preventing „dangerous anthropogenic interference
with the climate system‟.
 USA’s failure to ratify the treaty, first through the Clinton administration‟s fear that
the US Senate would not ratify the treaty and later through the Bush administration‟s
outright opposition, dealt Kyoto a fatal blow and set the process of tackling climate
change back for over a decade.
 The decision to restrict binding targets to developed states alone seriously
compromised the Kyoto process from the outset. USA consistently used the
exclusion of China and India as a justification for its non-participation.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 5

  Moreover, China‟s carbon emissions continued to rise steeply, and have exceeded
those of the USA since 2008, meaning that climate change could no longer be seen
merely as a developed world problem.

UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen took place in December 2009. Copenhagen

summit was an attempt to create a post Kyoto climate agreement. However, attempt failed
miserably.

Durban summit (2011): countries agreed on a plan to agree on a new climate agreement by
2015 in Paris and it will come into force by 2020. Kyoto will continue to operate till then.

Doha summit (2012): Kyoto‟s commitment period was extended up till 2020.

Paris summit (2015): a new climate agreement was signed (implemented 2020 onwards). A
bottom up approach was introduced. All countries are required to submit Intended
Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) with UNFCCC.

USA under the presidency of Donald trump had withdrawn from Paris climate deal. This
reflects continuing tensions inherent in climate change negotiations. One of the biggest
problems is that the issue of climate change exposes significant divisions between developed
world and the developing world. Climate change, in other words, serves to widen the North–
South divide. Following are the reasons for North-South divide:
 Disagreements over the concept of historical responsibility and principle of CBDR.
 Great power rivalry between USA and China.
 Short term economic self-interest given priority over long term environmental
concerns.
 After global financial crisis of 2007-09, states want to do little for climate change.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 6

 India and Climate Change

India’s Stakes in Climate Change Negotiations

India has high stakes with respect to the phenomenon of climate change and international
climate change negotiations. India‟s stakes in climate change negotiations are significant as
the post Kyoto climate regime will have a bearing on India’s future economic growth
path and development.

Moreover, India is highly vulnerable to climate change impacts corresponding to its water
resources, monsoonal climate, coastal ecosystems, biodiversity and agricultural
productivity. Climate change has become rather serious and imminent, especially in a
monsoon dependent and a poverty ridden country like India.

India can expect in the 21st century more heavy rainfall events, higher sea level and more
severe heat waves which will hamper the agricultural production of the country. Climate
change will add one more dimension to the problems created by uncontrolled population
growth and inappropriate development policies in India.

Devesh Kapur and Radhika Khosla in their article “Climate Change: India‟s Options” has
analyzed effects of climate change on India. Following are possible effects:

 Climate change in India can result in intense rain and more frequent flash floods
during the monsoon which would result in a higher proportion of runoff and a
reduction in groundwater recharge.
 They argue that impact of global warming on glaciers will result in retreating
glaciers in the Himalayas which is projected to increase flooding and affect water
resources within the next two to three decades.
 The implications of melting glaciers and shrinking of scarcer river basin water
resources can pose a formidable challenge, and lead to acute shortages of water for
drinking and farming.
 Coastal ecosystems will also be affected by sea level rise and temperature increases.
Heavily populated mega-delta regions will be at greater risk due to increased
flooding.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 7

  Projected sea-level rise could also damage aquaculture industries, and can result in
declining fish productivity.
 There will also be higher risks of increased frequency and intensity of coastal surges
and cyclones.
 India's agriculture has been predicted to suffer more than any other country's as a
result of climate impacts. Projected surface warming and shifts in rainfall could
decrease crop yields by 30% by the mid-2ist century.
 Changes in monsoon are expected to result in severe droughts and intense flooding
in parts of India.
 India has a formidable challenge of fighting poverty as it hosts a huge amount of
poor population which is unable to adapt to rising temperatures and extreme
weather.

India’s position in Climate Change negotiations:

The two main guiding pillars of the Indian position in climate change negotiations has been
the principles of ‘differentiation between north and south countries in terms of
responsibility’ and ‘equity on the basis of per capita emissions’. These guiding principles
of India‟s climate change diplomacy can be traced back to the concept of „environmental
colonialism‟.

Sunita Narain and Anil Agarwal were successful in putting the concept of ‘environmental
colonialism’ into perspective by debunking the argument that India and China must share the
blame for heating up the earth and destabilizing its climate. They made a distinction between
the ‘luxury emissions’ of the rich (north countries- annex 1 countries under the UNFCCC)
and the ‘survival emissions’ of the poor South (developing and least developed countries-
non annex 1 countries under the UNFCCC). This became the basis for India‟s stand on
differentiation between north and south countries during initial phase of its climate change
diplomacy.

India has always been very aggressive and vocal in international climate change negotiations
and had played a very important role in negotiating the draft of UNFCCC (1992) and the
Kyoto Protocol (1997). India has so far ensured that it’s national interests of
unhampered economic growth, development and future energy security is safeguarded.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 8

According to Navroz Dubash, India has always argued for a distinct and collective southern
position in its response to climate change and this stance has been firmly based on the
argument that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and
overriding priorities of the developing country parties. It is noteworthy that India‟s
proposals in international climate change negotiations received wide support among the
developing countries.

Furthermore, India‟s critical contribution in framing the norms of ‘equity’ and ‘historical
responsibility’ in climate change regime governed by UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol is well
known. Article 4.7 of UNFCCC (1992) and principle of Common but Differentiated
Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDRRC) adopted under the Kyoto
Protocol (1997) stands testimony to India‟s brilliant diplomacy and negotiation strategy as it
incorporates all the major arguments put forth by India and other developing countries. This
helped India in assuming a leadership role among the South countries in climate change
negotiations.

Article 4.7 of the UNFCCC upholds that developing countries have no obligation to
implement mitigation measures involving incremental costs, unless these costs are met
in fully by the developed countries. When thus supported, developing countries assumed
conditional commitments which were unlike the binding commitments of the developed
countries.

Shift in India’s climate change position:

In the run up to Copenhagen summit (COP 15) in 2009, India‟s negotiating position
underwent a clear shift of position as India committed to voluntary, unilateral and
unconditional emission intensity cuts to resonate with its emerging power status and also
joined separate groups like BASIC.

India announced voluntary, unconditional and unilateral pledge to reduce its emissions
intensity (emissions per unit GDP) between 20 to 25 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020
through domestic mitigation actions. This marked an important shift in India‟s position not
only because it agreed to under-take mitigation actions but even more so because it agreed to

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 9

do so without any international financial support and without securing other Indian
objectives such as legally binding deep emission cuts for developed countries. India also
introduced a National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) in 2008 which marked a
turning point in India‟s engagement on the climate issue.

Copenhagen was a significant turning point in climate change negotiations. It marked the
beginning of the shift from top down to bottoms up approach. By voluntarily accepting
cuts India also embraced bottoms up approach.

Paris climate agreement of 2015 marks complete shift to bottoms up approach. All
countries are required to reduce carbon emissions. India has also submitted its own INDC
(Intended nationally determined contribution) to UNFCCC. It is noteworthy that India is the
third largest emitter in the world. Therefore, there are limits to how long India could
have resisted accepting carbon emission cuts.

India’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution

 India to reduce the Emissions Intensity of its GDP by 33 to 35 Per Cent by 2030
from 2005 Level
 India to create additional Carbon Sink of 2.5 to 3 Billion Tonnes of Co2 Equivalent
through Additional Forest and Tree Cover by 2030
 India to Anchor a Global Solar Alliance

India has also displayed great enthusiasm and passion in terms of strengthening global effort
for solar energy. India and France are founder members of International Solar Alliance.
ISA is headquartered in Gurugram.

India and the North-South Divide at Climate Change Negotiations:

India has always championed the cause of the global south in climate change
negotiations by taking strong positions supporting the interest of the developing world.
However, recently India‟s position has witnessed a change with respect to accepting bottoms
up approach in Paris climate agreement.

It is important to mention here that India‟s practice of climate diplomacy reflects a balancing
exercise between its traditional ‘constraint driven’ approach and the new globalist

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 10

‘aspiration driven’ stance pursued by several political actors. Ambitions for raising
India‟s global status have incentivized India to shoulder more responsibility for climate
mitigation. A fear of isolation has also seemed to have pushed the shift in India’s stance.

Thus India has introduced a certain degree of flexibility in climate negotiations but at the
same time it can still be seen that in spite of the new changed position of India, it still holds
the pivot of the north-south divide and can help formulate a consensus which resonates
equity and justice from the perspective of the south.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 11