Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr | As Global Climate Deal Sinks, India, China Must Innovate

It is unrealistic to think that the issue of global climate change should be decided on science-based empirical evidence alone. All climate change decisions are political because they reflect and affect the power, influence of countries and peoples. This was quite evident at the 30th edition of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), which is popularly known as the Conference of the Parties (COP30), at Belem in Brazil, which ended in late November. It was a difficult conference, perhaps the most difficult so far. It was a disaster in many ways because no forward movement could be agreed on.

The two major issues that stood out were about setting a timeframe for ending the reign of fossil fuels, which has fuelled modern industrial civilisation as we have known it. About 80 of the 195 countries were in favour of setting a deadline to phase out use of fossil fuels as a way of cleaning up the climate crisis. It was inevitable that there would be a clash, and resistance.

At the end of the conference, European Parliament delegation chair Lidia Pereira said in a statement: “At COP30, despite our persistent efforts and the European Parliament’s clear mandate on mitigation and the phase-out of fossil fuels, we faced a unified Brics-Arab front and a presidency unwilling to match our level of ambition, and we must regret that the final outcome did not go further.” In contrast, the secretary-general of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) Haitham Al Ghais said in a statement on the last day of the conference: “Petroleum and petroleum-derived products are essential for modern civilisation, raising living standards and fuelling sustainable development. They are vital to health services, agriculture, trade, commerce, the distribution and administration of aid relief, and much more.” The EU, as represented by the European Parliament, and Opec are both influential groups. The Europeans wanted to push their point of view, while the Opec blocked it. And each had legitimate motivations. The larger political agenda of Europe is to lessen its dependence on fossil fuels, on Opec, to move on to cleaner and better technologies. Opec depends solely on its oil exports.

Russia, China and India, among many other countries, were opposed to any timeline over fossil fuels. Russia depends on its gas and oil exports, much to the discomfort of Europe. This was especially so after the economic sanctions against Russia in the wake of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 failed to cripple the Russian economy. Both China and India know that they cannot cut off their dependence on coal and oil anytime soon despite their success in creating renewable energy alternatives of reasonable proportions. While they are sure to increase their share of renewable energy in running their economies, they do not want to make any hasty commitments to ending their use of fossil fuel-based energy sources.

The other major issue that stood out like a store thumb was climate finance. While developed Europe wants a timeline for edging out fossil fuels, it is not willing to make any reasonable promises on financing poor and developing countries to make the transition to greener energy sources. Financing the shift to renewable sources of energy would be an effective way of phasing out fossil fuels. But Europe and the West are by and large not willing to do anything about it beyond the minimal commitment of $100 billion annually, which was made at COP28 in Dubai, and $300 billion annually, a commitment made in Baku at COP29. The climate finance which is needed was reckoned at $1.3 trillion. The West has suggested that the rest of the money, apart from the $300 billion they committed, should be raised from the private sector, including from agencies like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. But there were no concrete pathways worked out to funnel he funds and meet the challenge of climate change goals.

A recent European report has showed that China had lent more than a trillion dollars to countries across the world, including developed countries like the United States. So, if China wants to, it can contribute $600 billion a year to supplement the modest $300 billion that the West had agreed to pay.

But China would not like to take on that responsibility because that would be allowing the West to get away with the damage they had caused because of their reckless industrialisation programmes, which is responsible for the climate change disaster looming on the horizon. India’s environment minister Bhupendra Yadav had emphasised the moral liability of the West and its obligation to transfer funds and technology for developing countries to make the transition to green energy resources. The economic development of the last 200 years and more has been an amoral one. It is unlikely that moral arguments will make any sense to the West.

This turns out to be a political and economic tussle between the West and the rest of the world. We are at the moment leaving out the elephant in the room, the United States under President Donald Trump, which remains the highest greenhouse emitter, at around 29 per cent or so. Despite his irresponsible stance on climate change, President Trump would want to continue to depend on Arab and Opec oil resources and not entirely exhaust the indigenous resources of the United States, including shale gas. Europe would be isolated.

Every country, including the Opec bloc, recognises that oil cannot last forever, and there is need to look for alternative energy sources. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are already looking at nuclear power, and they are likely to expand their nuclear power base. The developing countries like India and China, and the Asian, African and Latin American nations have to move forward with their alternative plans. They should not be too worried by European restrictions on trade based on carbon-emission related restrictions. This would mean that India and China will have to innovate aggressively on sources of energy, and not depend on the West to provide scientific and technological aid. Like Japan in the last century, India and China have been quick to absorb the scientific and technological breakthroughs made in Europe and America. The urgent need now is to forge ahead and achieve breakthroughs of their own.