In an article in the New York Times on Dec. 3, 2009 titled, “India Announces Plan to Slow Emissions”, it was reported that India plans to do just that. Specifically, India’s goal is to reduce the growth rate of its emissions by 2020, leaving the door open to “bolder steps” if an “equitable” deal can be reached during negotiations scheduled for next week in Copenhagen. India joined the U.S., China, Brazil, Indonesia, and South Africa in making a general pledge in advance of the Copenhagen talks.

India’s per-capita emissions output is low, due to their large population, but their overall output ranks fifth in the world and is projected to grow with their economy. India’s approach is similar to that of China, focusing more on energy efficiency rather than accepting mandatory limits on total emissions. They have refused any imposition of such limits, citing fears that it would inhibit the country’s economic growth, which is something it rightfully holds dear. It should be noted that India is especially vulnerable to problems associated with climate change such as alteration in the monsoon season and rising sea levels. Once thought to be obstructionist in the climate change talks, it is for these reasons that they have decided to step up to the plate on the issue.

India’s plan includes slowing the growth rate of the “carbon intensity”, defined roughly as the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of economic output, by 20-25 percent by the year 2020 compared with 2005 levels. This pledge is independent of any decisions that might be reached in Copenhagen, “This is our baseline. We will do this on our own.” said India’s Environmental Minister.

This sounds like an aggressive goal, 20-25 percent in ten years. But is it? India’s rate of growth of carbon intensity has already dropped by 17.6 percent from 1990 to 2005, according to the article. Is this because her population has grown, along with her economy? Further, many (Note: “many”, not “all”) conservatives and leftists in India believe that they should not be responsible for emissions controls because the bulk of emissions in the atmosphere are from more developed countries. Is that the way we as a global population should think of the responsibility of countering climate change: ‘You’re responsible for this, you deal with it.’? Or should the issue of climate change be thought of as a universal, global one?

Lastly, the article states that India’s official and nonnegotiable position is not to agree to any legally binding reduction in emissions or any agreement that would include a peak year for total emissions. This is understandable, I suppose, as it would be a risky proposition to sign any legally binding agreement on something so uncertain as the emissions output of an entire country, and a very large one at that. However, the last lines of the article were of concern to me. It was reported that India is seeking financial and technical assistance from the U.S., and if that assistance was delivered, India would be willing to submit to international oversight on the matter. I may be taking those words out of context, but it sounds as if the position is one of ‘If you’re willing to pay for it, we’ll bend a little.’ I am not aware of the specifics on the proposals of other countries, but are the other countries like the U.S. or China requesting such assistance?

I should mention that this post does not in any way constitute a negative attitude on my part towards the Republic of India, only my reaction to an article and the assertions therein. I am neither a politician nor a scientific expert on climate change, as I lack both the education and the desire to be either. Just my two cents.

-Chris Phippen