- Email: [email protected]
A comments on ‘global warming in an unequal world’
lwIEWPOINT A comment on ‘Global Warming in an Unequa World’
N.S. Jodha
The essence of the conclusions of the World Resources Institute’ is aptly reflected in the Gujarati proverb, ‘What is mine is mine and what is yours is ours’. Agarwal and Narain provocatively question the conclusions, the underlying methods and the database.* What is clear is that the definition of responsibility for emissions is challenging both scientifically and politically, and that it requires more serious effort from both developed and developing countries. The author is with the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, PO Box 3226, Kathmandu, Nepal.
‘World Resources Institute, World Resources 1990-97, Oxford University Press, New York, 1990. 2A. Agarwal and S. Narain, Global Warming in an Unequal World, Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi, 1991,
0959-3780/92/020097-02
0
In their analysis of the findings of the World Resources Institute (WRI), Agarwal and Naraine of the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) find much to criticize. In the first place, they find that the WRI analysis is quite sloppy, especially with respect to the uncritical use of data about deforestation in the developing world. Outdated and singleyear data are used as bases for extrapolating deforestation rates, when annual average rates of deforestation would be more appropriate. Second, a similar lack of precision affects the use of data on emissions due to fossil fuels and land use changes. Third, the WRI’s assessment bypasses concerns about equity by ignoring historical differences in the degree to which countries contributed to the build-up of greenhouse gases. As a result, the WRI’s analysis leads to proposals for the unfair redistribution of a global commons of extreme importance, namely Earth’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide and methane via global sinks. In the process, greenhouse gas contributions from land use changes, rice and animal farming are overemphasized, while no distinctions are made between the ‘survival emissions’ of the poor and the ‘luxury emissions’ of the rich. Finally, Agarwal and Narain are concerned about the potential effect
1992 Butterworth-Heinemann
Ltd
that a flawed but highly publicized report may have on policy makers and others. It is possible that the defects may be carried over into future interwhere they national conventions, would become legally binding on individual countries. This is not an idle fear, because the WRI’s assessments have already been endorsed by some United Nations agencies and national governments. Agarwal and Narain propose an alternative methodology that focuses on ‘global justice, equity, and sustainability’. Global sinks for greenhouse gases are allocated in proportion to national populations: the resulting quantities constitute ‘permissible emissions’. Total existing emissions of individual countries are compared with permissible emissions to identify emissions that exceed permissible limits. Some of these excess emissions are traded from high emitters to low emitters that have a surplus. After the surplus is exhausted, countries with excess emissions remaining are labelled ‘true culprits polluting the globe with greenhouse gases’. A comparison of the WRI’s list of targetted countries with those identified by Agarwal and Narain is revealing. For example, the WRI calculates that the USA is responsible for 17% of existing net emissions whereas the cor-
97
Viewpoint: Greenhouse
equity
responding CSE figure is 27.4%. In contrast, China’s share drops from 6.4% (WRI) to 0.57% (CSE). The shares of developed countries as a whole rise from 52.6% (WRI) to 67% (CSE), with proportionate decreases for developing countries. When the data are adjusted to take account of more accurate information on annual average deforestation, the share of the developed countries becomes 78.5%. The real value of the CSE report may be judged not by its immediate effect on international agreements, but by the extent to which it brings into question the dominant view of global change and encourages policy makers to search for alternative approaches. Agarwal and Narain make a convincing case for examining a large set of issues that are generally ignored in conventional deliberations. They also prompt us to look again at the whole culture of the global warming debate, its processes and priorities. Four important points emerge from such a reconsideration. First, the lack of transparency of the debate tends to limit large-scale and varied participation. Apart from a concerned fraction of the scientific community, mostly in the developed world, few people understand the intricacies of data and modelling that underlie and shore up the main conclusions. The result is to perpetuate already established perspectives, notwithstanding a few dissenting voices. From the moment that transparency is increased, the range and level of participation in the debate expands and the potential grows for
98
GLOBAL
better scientific understanding and more effective public action. Second, there can be little effective involvement by scientists and others from the developing world if they lack access to data and methodologies that are available to analysts in developed countries. Third, mass media treatments of global environmental issues rarely do justice to the scientific issues, partly because they are obscured by highly charged political debates and also because there is heavy pressure to recruit scientific findings to one or other of the contending interest groups. Consequently, tentative conclusions are sometimes rushed into the political arena without adequate analysis. It is unfortunate that the WRI - an organization with a fairly good trace record _ may have been led to this position. Finally, worthwhile collective action against global warming is already constrained by persisting uncertainties about change scenarios, especially the regional dimensions. Controversies like the one between the CSE and the WRI only make the task more difficult. Defining the responsibility for emissions is not only a challenging scientific task; it is also a politically sensitive one. It requires more serious effort from both developing countries and developed countries. Fortunately, both the scientific community and the non-governmental organizations are not divided along North and South lines. Many in the North are more sensitive to concerns of the South than are the decision makers within the South.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGE
June 1992
N.S. Jodha
The essence of the conclusions of the World Resources Institute’ is aptly reflected in the Gujarati proverb, ‘What is mine is mine and what is yours is ours’. Agarwal and Narain provocatively question the conclusions, the underlying methods and the database.* What is clear is that the definition of responsibility for emissions is challenging both scientifically and politically, and that it requires more serious effort from both developed and developing countries. The author is with the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, PO Box 3226, Kathmandu, Nepal.
‘World Resources Institute, World Resources 1990-97, Oxford University Press, New York, 1990. 2A. Agarwal and S. Narain, Global Warming in an Unequal World, Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi, 1991,
0959-3780/92/020097-02
0
In their analysis of the findings of the World Resources Institute (WRI), Agarwal and Naraine of the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) find much to criticize. In the first place, they find that the WRI analysis is quite sloppy, especially with respect to the uncritical use of data about deforestation in the developing world. Outdated and singleyear data are used as bases for extrapolating deforestation rates, when annual average rates of deforestation would be more appropriate. Second, a similar lack of precision affects the use of data on emissions due to fossil fuels and land use changes. Third, the WRI’s assessment bypasses concerns about equity by ignoring historical differences in the degree to which countries contributed to the build-up of greenhouse gases. As a result, the WRI’s analysis leads to proposals for the unfair redistribution of a global commons of extreme importance, namely Earth’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide and methane via global sinks. In the process, greenhouse gas contributions from land use changes, rice and animal farming are overemphasized, while no distinctions are made between the ‘survival emissions’ of the poor and the ‘luxury emissions’ of the rich. Finally, Agarwal and Narain are concerned about the potential effect
1992 Butterworth-Heinemann
Ltd
that a flawed but highly publicized report may have on policy makers and others. It is possible that the defects may be carried over into future interwhere they national conventions, would become legally binding on individual countries. This is not an idle fear, because the WRI’s assessments have already been endorsed by some United Nations agencies and national governments. Agarwal and Narain propose an alternative methodology that focuses on ‘global justice, equity, and sustainability’. Global sinks for greenhouse gases are allocated in proportion to national populations: the resulting quantities constitute ‘permissible emissions’. Total existing emissions of individual countries are compared with permissible emissions to identify emissions that exceed permissible limits. Some of these excess emissions are traded from high emitters to low emitters that have a surplus. After the surplus is exhausted, countries with excess emissions remaining are labelled ‘true culprits polluting the globe with greenhouse gases’. A comparison of the WRI’s list of targetted countries with those identified by Agarwal and Narain is revealing. For example, the WRI calculates that the USA is responsible for 17% of existing net emissions whereas the cor-
97
Viewpoint: Greenhouse
equity
responding CSE figure is 27.4%. In contrast, China’s share drops from 6.4% (WRI) to 0.57% (CSE). The shares of developed countries as a whole rise from 52.6% (WRI) to 67% (CSE), with proportionate decreases for developing countries. When the data are adjusted to take account of more accurate information on annual average deforestation, the share of the developed countries becomes 78.5%. The real value of the CSE report may be judged not by its immediate effect on international agreements, but by the extent to which it brings into question the dominant view of global change and encourages policy makers to search for alternative approaches. Agarwal and Narain make a convincing case for examining a large set of issues that are generally ignored in conventional deliberations. They also prompt us to look again at the whole culture of the global warming debate, its processes and priorities. Four important points emerge from such a reconsideration. First, the lack of transparency of the debate tends to limit large-scale and varied participation. Apart from a concerned fraction of the scientific community, mostly in the developed world, few people understand the intricacies of data and modelling that underlie and shore up the main conclusions. The result is to perpetuate already established perspectives, notwithstanding a few dissenting voices. From the moment that transparency is increased, the range and level of participation in the debate expands and the potential grows for
98
GLOBAL
better scientific understanding and more effective public action. Second, there can be little effective involvement by scientists and others from the developing world if they lack access to data and methodologies that are available to analysts in developed countries. Third, mass media treatments of global environmental issues rarely do justice to the scientific issues, partly because they are obscured by highly charged political debates and also because there is heavy pressure to recruit scientific findings to one or other of the contending interest groups. Consequently, tentative conclusions are sometimes rushed into the political arena without adequate analysis. It is unfortunate that the WRI - an organization with a fairly good trace record _ may have been led to this position. Finally, worthwhile collective action against global warming is already constrained by persisting uncertainties about change scenarios, especially the regional dimensions. Controversies like the one between the CSE and the WRI only make the task more difficult. Defining the responsibility for emissions is not only a challenging scientific task; it is also a politically sensitive one. It requires more serious effort from both developing countries and developed countries. Fortunately, both the scientific community and the non-governmental organizations are not divided along North and South lines. Many in the North are more sensitive to concerns of the South than are the decision makers within the South.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGE
June 1992