Editorial 1 : The nature of the future
Introduction: The 28th Conference of Parties (COP28) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) concluded a day late on December 13. The battle over words and phrases was won, but not the war on climate change.
Global temperature rise and its threat life on earth
- Latest assessment reports of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), included in the stocktake, says that the current nationally determined contributions (NDCs) conveyed by the states parties to the UNFCCC, if fully implemented, will only result in a meagre 2 per cent reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 as against 2019.
- Whereas, a 50 per cent chance of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050 requires the peaking of global emissions by 2025 — only two years from now — and their reduction by 43 per cent by 2030 and by 60 per cent by 2035.
- The gap is enormous and it would be a leap of faith to imagine that these minimal targets will be achieved.
- We are already at 1.1 degrees Celsius rise in global average temperature compared to the pre-industrial period.
The challenges in achieving the promised NDC
- The achievement of several NDCs of developing countries are conditional upon access to requisite finance and technology support from developed countries.
- The record so far is abysmal. In 2009, developed countries pledged to provide $100 billion per year to support climate action by developing countries.
- This figure has never ever been achieved. Even the modest figures claimed include questionable sources of finance such as philanthropic transfers, private capital flows and, sometimes, even existing overseas development assistance (ODA).
- The Indian Minister of Environment and Climate Change was right in pointing out at the conference that there needs to be an agreed definition of what constitutes climate finance.
- Serious reservations have been expressed over the $89.6 billion claimed by the OECD for the year 2021.
- A more rigorous analysis by OXFAM adds up to less than $25 billion which is also closer to our own Finance Ministry’s figures.
- And yet, the $89.6 billion figure is included in the declaration with a bland statement that there may be “diversity of definitions of climate finance”.
There is little hope that adequate funds will be mobilized (IPCC report)
- One, it estimates that between now and 2030, for implementing their NDCs, developing countries need $5.8-$5.9 trillion or roughly $800 billion a year for the next seven years.
- Two, for adaptation alone, about $215-$387 billion a year would be required in the same period. On date, only an additional $188 million has been pledged to the Adaptation Fund.
- Three, a loss and damage fund has been established at COP28, which is a significant and positive development, but has attracted only $770.6 million in pledges so far. It is not clear what would qualify as irreversible loss and damage from man-made climate impacts and which category of developing countries would be potential beneficiaries. It is unlikely that India would be in that list.
- Given that most developed economies are suffering from low growth and inflationary pressures, it is delusional to think that financial flows will increase dramatically in the next few years.
Some positive outcomes of COP28
- One, this is the first COP to acknowledge that we must not just deal with emissions but tackle their source, which is the fossil fuel-based energy system which powers all economic activity.
- Two, there are more credible targets such as tripling the installed capacity of renewable energy globally to 11,000 GW by 2020, and doubling the rate of energy efficiency gains from 2 per cent to 4 per cent annually by 2030. In both areas, India is a front runner.
- Three, for the first time, nuclear energy has been brought in as a clean energy source as has green and blue hydrogen. These are also sectors that India is currently focused on.
- There has been a tendency at recent COPs of interested countries banding together to adopt initiatives, make pledges and set targets for climate action in different sectors.
- These include an initiative led by the US on reducing methane emissions adopted at COP26.
- At COP28, we now have a Powering Past Coal Alliance and a Nuclear Power Group of 28 countries which aims to triple nuclear power capacity by 2030.
- India has generally stayed away from these groupings, preferring to go by consensus targets adopted by the UNFCCC.
- There is relief in India that the declaration only calls for “phase-down” and not phase-out of unabated coal power.
Conclusion: We are finally moving towards acknowledging that climate change is only one component of a larger ecological challenge the world is facing and that intervention in one domain has feedback effects on other domains. There is no alternative to adopting a cross-domain and cross-disciplinary approach to resolving such deeply interconnected challenges. COP28 has at least pointed us in the right direction.
Editorial 2 : Protect the house
Introduction: On Wednesday, December 13, two young men — Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D — jumped into the Lok Sabha gallery, shouted anti-establishment slogans and opened canisters that let out yellow smoke.
The event showed the laxity of security agencies
- Most shocking about December 13 is the laxity, the failure really, of Parliament security and the intelligence apparatus.
- That the new building could be breached so easily, on the anniversary of the terrorist attack in 2001, brings up horrific scenarios of what might have been. Action taken by competent agencies
- The Lok Sabha Secretariat has suspended eight security personnel. Yet, many questions remain unanswered.
- After the 2001-armed attack, a complete security overhaul including CCTV cameras, barricades and electric fencing were put in place in the old Parliament building.
- These measures are reportedly in place in the new structure as well.
- But the breach on Wednesday occurred from the visitors’ gallery and the canisters in the shoes of the perpetrators did not set off metal detectors.
How new parliament building became vulnerable to such attack
- The new Parliament has seen an increase in visitors without a commensurate increase in security personnel.
- The risks in the very structure of the new building — the reduced height between the visitors’ gallery and the floor of the House — may need to be mitigated.
- The reports of the Delhi Police reviewing security arrangements after Khalistani separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannu threatened an attack on the House make the lapse all the more perplexing.
- These issues — and many more — will have to be resolved by the committee set up by the Union home ministry under Anish Dayal Singh, DG, CRPF.
What more can be done to increase the security of parliament
- It is also important, amid the necessary conversation on its security, to remember what Parliament stands for.
- In the aftermath of the attack, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh asked “all MPs… to remain alert and exercise caution” while giving out passes.
- He also asked Opposition members not to “precipitate anarchy” because the Lok Sabha Speaker and the government had already begun inquiries.
- There is some merit, perhaps, in his words. The miscreants were indeed issued visitor passes by an MP.
- But the protection of the House must go hand-in-hand with its openness.
- Parliament is both of the people and for the people — it must remain open to them, as it has throughout the history of independent India.
- The suspension of 14 Opposition MPs for demanding — albeit in a noisy, perhaps even unruly manner — that the home Minister answer for the security breach must be rethought.
- The videography of the parliament building must be limited.
- There must be more security drills to strengthen the alertness of security arrangements in parliament.
- Every political member must condemn this kind of vandalism in parliament, and must not play politics over such incidence.
- More vetting of visitors must be done, and if possible structural changes to the visitors’ gallery must be done.
- Intelligence agencies must become more alert as the parliament building has emerged as most visible target for miscreants.
Conclusion: Just as the building that is a symbol of Indian democracy must be secure, so must also be the elected representatives who are its voice. On anniversary of 2001 terrorist attack, security failure in Parliament is a wake-up call. Accountability must be fixed.