During the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’, visit to India last Sunday, where she heaped praises to that country’s efforts to curb carbon emissions, the local Environmental Minister Jairam Ramesh loudly thought otherwise. He said his country won’t agree to “legally binding” limits on greenhouse gases (GHG).
That remark couldn’t have come to an importune time as the minister escorted the ever graceful Clinton during the tour at ITC Green Center outside the Indian capital. She called the center “a monument to the future”, a testimony to India’s efforts towards cleaner energy sources. Ramesh, however, pointed out that India is among the major countries which pledged recently to join the efforts to limit global warming by curbing carbon emissions.
But behind that facade of diplomatese lies a brewing conflict between the developed countries represented by the United States on one hand and the industrializing economies typified by India, over GHG emission limits.
Clinton’s smiles can easily disarm a gentleman like Ramesh, but she did not come to India to relish the splendour of Taj Majal. She was there to arm-twist India to accept her boss U.S. President Barack Obama’s cap-and trade plan as a means of weaning his country from fossil-based “dirty” energy sources like coal and oil.
Briefly, the cap-and-trade plan, which is becoming a contentious issue at par with Afghanistan at Capitol Hill, is a series of proposed legislation that makes power generation from fossil fuels more expensive by capping the amount of GHG emissions allowed from these sources. The polluting sources are only given certain emissions credits which they can trade if they have excess credits—hence the “trade” portion.
The current Obama proposal calls for an eventual 83% reduction from 2005 levels by 2050, and a do-able 14% reduction by 2020. And, yes, his bookies say that the government stands to gain $646 billion between 2012 and 2019 from the auction of carbon credits.
Obama cruised to the presidency partly riding on the promise to the American people of a cleaner future—and he is just doing that with the plan. For the American government, the plan is actually a tightrope policy of appeasing both the green movement and the coal industry which supplies roughly half of the power needs of the country. Outright banning of coal, or even a significant reduction of its use, would severely cripple the mightiest economy on earth.
American legislators know that such plan carries enormous costs, and protagonists from both sides of the divide are cranking out arguments and associated costs to support their contention. Nobody knows what the final costs would be, but one thing is sure: the American people would be facing increased electricity costs, despite the claims that money raised from the exercise could be plowed back into the economy.
To give you an idea on what electricity rates increases Americans could expect from the floated cap and trade plan, utility operators estimate that price increases could range from a low of 40% to as high as 120% for coal-dependent states such as Oregon.
But what’s India—and the developing countries, including the Philippines—got to do with America’s internal energy policy?
Plenty. U.S. policymakers and think tanks have already figured out, that with the increase in energy costs, the economy would come to a crawl, and the country’s competitiveness on the global arena would be acutely debased.
Which is why for the plan to be viable, the U.S. must enlist the cooperation of the fastest developing economies like India and China, by urging them to do likewise. Or using strong- arm tactics.
But India, which is growing at an average of 8% a year, cannot afford that its march to progress would be derailed by caps imposed from outside.
No, India is not running away from its commitment to cleaner future; “we are simply not in a position to take on legally binding emission targets,” Ramesh insists.
It may not be readily obvious, but people in the third world, who are consuming a fraction of energy per capita compared to their counterparts in developed economies, couldn’t simply have their angst for more power curtailed. The alternative is further slide into abject poverty.
If it were not for the associated cost, it would be pleasant to dream of fresh air every day throughout one’s life, brought about by clean sources of energy. Yes, Americans may grumble about increased electricity bills. They may have to learn to switch off their plasma TVs when not in use. Some may just bear and grin it, but somehow, other expenses will have to be pruned down. Such scenario could put more strain to people who have borne the brunt of the current recession which is considered the worst since the 1930s.
But for the millions of people in Asia and Africa, curtailing power use could mean complete darkness after dusk, or scaling down production at the micro-enterprises which could barely provide subsistence in the first place. That is, if they already have rudimentary electrical power in the first place.
Yes, mercury is still being emitted by coal plants, but will all of it finds its way to the human ecosystem? Yes, pound for pound, a coal plant emits far more carbon dioxide than any of the alternative, albeit more costly, sources. The mightiest power on earth knows this, but it is powerless to scale down drastically its own coal usage. And for one reason: cost.
Yes, any sane person would love to dismantle all the fossil-fuel plants for the sake of a healthy future, but then, at this point in time, a major problem facing the country is still lingering poverty.
Would we buckle down and dream on, or be pragmatic like India?
Would I trade an unknown, possibly bright future, with a more horrible present?
And I thought about my country.
I just cringed.
