|
In India, 150 million people who belong to the upper-income groups already emit more than 2.5 tonnes of CO2 per annum. A new Greenpeace report states that India’s rich consuming class is hiding its significant carbon footprint behind legions of poor. Shouldn’t the government, which demands differentiated responsibility in the international arena, establish the same within India?
Climate change is today accepted as the largest threat to humanity. It has brought to focus critical questions of linkages between development and environmental sustainability. In December 2007, the world’s governments will meet in Bali, Indonesia, to kick-start the process leading up to the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. This meeting is extremely crucial to ensure that governments commit to larger emission cuts that will keep global temperature rise to below 2 degrees. While this international meeting sets the debate for ‘climate justice’ at a global level this study aims at raising the same debate within the country. It asks the question – is there climate injustice happening in India? It presents a case for the government to implement the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ amongst the various socio-economic groups in the country. The report is based on a first of its kind face-to-face survey across the country ranging from the metros to medium and small towns and rural areas on domestic energy consumption and transportation. Energy consumption patterns in 819 households have been converted into CO2 emissions and then assigned to seven different income classes. The findings plainly illustrate that the considerably significant carbon footprint of a relatively small wealthy class (1% of the population) in the country is camouflaged by the 823 million poor population of the country, who keep the overall per capita emissions below 2 tonnes of CO2 per year. While even the richest income class in this study, earning more than Rs 30,000 a month, produce slightly less than the global average CO2 emissions of 5 tonnes, this amount already exceeds the sustainable global average CO2 emission of 2.5 tonnes per capita that needs to be reached to limit global warming below 2 degrees Centigrade. The carbon footprint of the four highest income classes earning more than Rs 8,000 per month, representing a population of about 150 million people in the country, already exceeds sustainable levels. Graph 1 highlights how this injustice ranks in terms of international per capita emissions while at the same time showing how the average per capita emissions of the different socio-economic groups in India are quite literally worlds apart. 
While India has a right to demand a ‘common but differentiated’ responsibility at an international level, there is an urgent need for intra-national common but differentiated responsibility too. Developed nations need to cut their CO2 emissions not only to prevent climate change but also to give space to the developing world to catch up, without pushing the global temperatures over the tipping point. The same is true within India. If the upper and middle classes do not manage to check their CO2 emissions, they will not only contribute to global warming, but will also deny hundreds of millions of poor Indians access to development. This study clearly illustrates the growing schism of carbon emissions between the two Indias; the poor bearing the biggest climate impact burden and camouflaging the other India’s lifestyle choices. The prescription provided as a response to the results in the study is not that India should not develop or the wealthy should stop consuming, but to make a clear case for India to decarbonise its development. The path of the 11th and 12th Five Year Plans proposed by the Indian government continues to base the future of energy production in the country mainly on coal power plants, thus further increasing CO2 emissions. A major revision of the future of the power sector is needed, shifting investments from coal and nuclear to renewables and energy efficiency, to create the carbon space for the poor to develop. In short, an Energy Revolution is needed in India as well as the rest of the world. Climate change is man-made Globally, temperatures have already increased by 0.7 degrees Centigrade over the past century. Temperatures are expected to further increase by a minimum of 1.8 degrees Centigrade to a maximum of 4 degrees Centigrade until the end of this century depending on our ability (or inability) to check climate change by undertaking drastic reductions in emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs). Apart from a few positive impacts on tourism and agriculture in northern Europe, increase in global temperatures will have detrimental effects in most parts of the world. Changing rainfall patterns will result in intense flooding and severe droughts, melting glaciers will aggravate the problem of freshwater shortage. The intensity and frequency of cyclones and other storms will increase, vector-borne diseases will spread and rising sea-levels will eventually drown coastal low-lying megacities like Mumbai and Kolkata. Developing economies located in tropical regions will have to bear the brunt of the worst impacts of climate change; countries like India which are on a high growth path will find their development jeopardised if global temperatures rise above 2 degrees Centigrade. Climate Change is man-made. The globe is heating up due to the emission of GHGs, the most prominent being carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels. Historically, developed countries are the biggest contributors to excessive GHG emissions, making them the most responsible for climate change. However over the last few decades, emissions of rapidly developing economies like India and China have surged. In fact, rankings by the WRI of top GHG emitters has USA on top, and developing countries such as China and India are ranked at no 2 and 5 respectively, making them amongst the world’s biggest emitters. The next round of negotiations for the second phase of the Kyoto Protocol, covering the period after 2012 should start in December 2007 in Bali. Governments are busy debating about who to blame and who must commit to drastic emission cuts to save the world from climate change. Until now, the Indian government has maintained that the average per capita CO2 emission of India is low (below 2 tonnes per person) compared to that of the EU-25 states (10.5 tonnes) and the US (23 tonnes). This is the basis for their argument to continue on a fossil fuel-driven economic development pathway. Referring to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, India claims its right to development and thus its right to consume more energy from fossil fuels, asking developed nations to create the carbon space. Implicit in this is the notion that the developed countries need to decrease their CO2 emissions drastically, so that developing countries can still increase theirs without pushing the planet in the direction of climate chaos. But India at this point of time is faced by two sharply contradictory realities. On the one hand there is a rapidly growing rich consumer class which has made the country the 12th largest luxury market in the world; on the other hand India is home to more than 800 million poor people on the planet who are extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. This study seeks to expose the lack of climate justice within India. Who is behind the average 1.67 tonnes of per capita CO2 emission in India? Who really contributes to these emissions? Is the rich consumer class hiding their CO2 emissions behind the legions of poor, most of whom do not even have access to electricity? Is it not the obligation of the government which demands differentiated responsibility in the international arena to establish the same within India? Methodology To assess C02 emission levels amongst different income classes in India, quantitative structured interviews were conducted. These interviews were conducted in the four metros (Kolkata, Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai), 500,000+ population towns (Patna, Ludhiana), 100,000 to 500,000 population towns (Kolhapur, Hubli), towns with a population less that 100,000 (Chatra, Bhadravati, Baghpat, Medak) and about 200 interviews were conducted in rural areas. Interviews were conducted with people who spent a maximum amount of their time at home so as to obtain accurate assessment of energy consumption in the house. A total of 819 interviews were conducted across various income classes. The assessment in this report is restricted to direct energy consumption from household appliances and transportation and does not include outsourcing of services. The assessment was done in the following manner:
Step 1: Calculating annual bill amount for electricity
-- Respondents were asked to provide their estimated bill amounts for winter months, summer months and the rest of the year
-- They were asked to provide their estimates of how many months they would classify as winter months, summer months and the rest of the year
-- Weighted average of seasonal bill with length (no of months) of season was taken to arrive at the annual electricity bill amount of the household
Step 2: Converting bill to units
-- Annual bill amount was converted to units using the billing structure for the city
-- This gave an estimate of number of units of electricity consumed per household per annum
Step 3: Validating the calculations
-- For validating this estimate at a household level, appliances used, in what numbers, and for how many months, for the number of days used in a month, and for the number of hours used per day were assessed.
-- Using wattage estimates for all appliances, total electricity consumption was calculated
-- Comparison of this with estimated electricity consumption showed that the two estimates were in line; in a few cases where these two had a wide variance, these cases were rejected from the analysis
-- Appliance analysis was also used to assess contribution of different appliances to the total electricity consumption. The assessment of CO2 emissions from personal transportation was done in the following manner:
Step 1: Calculating annual bill amount for personal transportation
-- Respondents were asked to provide their estimated bill amounts on travel expenses on a monthly and annual basis
-- Respondents were asked to provide their estimates of the different modes of transport they used and the distance traversed in each mode of transport
-- Respondents were also asked to provide information on leisure travel
(by air alone)
Step 2: Converting distance to fuel
-- Distances were converted depending on the mode of transport, to fuel consumed In this study people were categorised into 9 socio-economic classes as well as in 7 income groups. For each economic class the proportion of economic group was determined. Taking the population of various economic classes in India from the Business World Marketing Book 2006, these were re-distributed to income classes. Then the income classes were added up from the various socio-economic classes to arrive at the population. Fair ways to fight climate change India’s overall average per capita CO2 emission is 1.67 tonnes. The figure has been arrived at dividing the overall CO2 emissions of India given by the World Research Institute, by the population size given by the CIA Factbook. The average annual per capita CO2 emission in India as assessed by this survey is 501 kg. The average CO2 emissions per income group range from 335 kg for the income class below 3,000 rupees per month to an average of 1,494 kg for the income classes above 30,000 rupees per month. The richest consumer classes produce 4.5 times more CO2 than the poorest class, and almost 3 times more than the average (501 kgs). Multiplying the average per capita CO2 emissions per income group with the respective population size gives the absolute CO2 emissions for each income group. While only 14% of the population earns more than 8,000 rupees a month, they contribute 24% of the CO2 emissions of the country. By dividing the absolute CO2 share of each income group by their share of the overall population, one can calculate a Climate Injustice Quotient (CIQ). This clearly shows that when it comes to CO2 emissions, a relatively small wealthy class of 1% of the population in the country is hiding behind a huge proportion of 823 million poor people. It is the country’s poor, with an income of less than Rs 5,000 a month, who keep the average CO2 emissions really low. Lifestyles that heat the planet While CO2 emissions from cooking fuel increases only slightly with rising income, the increase in CO2 emissions from household electricity consumption (factor 5.5) and personal transport (factor 7.1) with rising incomes is very pronounced. An increasing use of electricity for lighting is already starting at low income levels and stabilises for income classes above Rs 5,000. A far sharper increase of CO2 emission from lighting between the lower and the higher income classes has been mitigated by the use of more efficient lighting systems like tube lights and CFLs, which are not accessible for the poor because of their relatively high price. Therefore CO2 emissions deriving from lighting only increase by a factor of 1.6 from the below Rs 3,000 to the Rs 5,000-8,000 income class and then stabilises. The considerably low rate of increase in CO2 emissions from household lighting clearly shows that lifestyle-induced increase in electricity consumption is buffered by the use of more efficient appliances. The use of inefficient lighting is responsible for 126 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year (7% of India’s overall emissions). Making CFLs, tubelights and other efficient lighting systems accessible to the poor by massive price reduction and prohibiting the sale of inefficient lights like incandescent bulbs, could cut these emissions by 95 million tonnes, achieving a 5% reduction of overall annual emissions. The CO2 emissions from fans, like that of lighting products, reaches a plateau in the 5-8,000 income class while that of electric geysers (water heaters) hits a plateau at the 8-10,000 income class. Washing machines only start to appear in the 5-8,000 class and peak at the 15-30,000 class indicating that the upper income class prefers using washing services/laundries. The outsourcing of services is not factored in this assessment as it is only based on the household electricity bill, signifying that this study underestimates the CO2 emissions of the upper income classes. Air conditioning today only makes up a small proportion of the overall household electricity consumption. Due to its high price it only starts to be used by income classes over 10,000 rupees but remarkably enough increases steeply by 6.5 times up to the Rs 30,000 class. But by far the most pronounced increase in electricity consumption and thus CO2 emissions from lower income groups to higher income groups is in the use of ‘Other’ appliances. ‘Other appliances’ constitutes all the small electronic devices that make living more comfortable for those who can afford it. They range from DVD players to kitchen equipment and from mobile phones to computers. None of these products account for a really significant share of the CO2 emissions, but together they add up to 49% of the overall household emissions of the >30k income class. The CO2 emissions of these other appliances increases from 4 kg per person in the <3,000 income class to 534 kg of CO2 per person in the >30,000 income class by a factor of 136. With increasing income, consumption changes from only essentials like food and clothing to a variety of lifestyle goods including electronics. Even with an increase in efficiency of all these products, the constant addition of new goods that consume electricity would drive the lifestyle of the >30,000 class over the limits of sustainability. Individual CO2 emissions from transport were split into two-wheelers, cars, buses, flights and other forms of transportation. Overall the increase in CO2 from the lowest to the richest income class increased by a factor of 7.1, far higher than the increase of 4.5 times for all uses. The increase is due to 3 factors. -- There is a gradual increase in the use of two-wheelers resulting in an increase from 11 kg of CO2 to 98 kg of CO2 per person
-- The use of cars is starting at an income of more than Rs 10,000 per month
-- There is a massive increase in air travel for the income class above Rs 30,000 per month The share of transport contributes only 7.2% of the overall personal emissions assessed by this study. WRI attributes a 4.9% share of transport to the overall CO2 emission of the country. This is low in comparison with an average global share of 14.6%. The transportation sector in India is witnessing a boom. A study done by TERI shows that from the 1980s to 2003, the number of vehicles on the road increased by almost 15 times. The study further predicts that the number of vehicles in India will increase from today’s figure of 60 million to approximately 537 million by 2030, resulting in a 9-13-fold increase of CO2 emissions from this sector. In the absence of good fast-train connectivity between cities, according to Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel, the country will need 1,500 to 2,000 passenger planes in 10 years, up from 260 now. A study by DIFID predicts that the overall CO2 emissions of transportation in India could increase to 1,200 million tonnes in 2030, which is comparable to 70% of India’s total CO2 emissions today. Three developments are crucial to limit the massive increase of CO2 emissions from the transport sector. -- Mandatory fuel efficiency standards need to be put in place swiftly so that the new cars entering the market use as little petrol or diesel as possible. This also helps the country to reduce its increasing dependency on oil imports.
-- Public transport systems like metros and efficient bus networks need to be built at least in all metros, also enabling these cities to handle the growing traffic burden.
-- Last but not least, a high-speed train network between big cities needs to be established to curb the dependency on air travel within the country. International climate injustice Though all the Indian income classes stay below the world average per capita CO2 emission, unfortunately such a view misses out the third dimension of climate justice. Namely that the global distribution of CO2 emissions needs to be not only equitable, but also sustainable. Today’s CO2 emissions already lead to a steady increase of global temperature, and with a global population still rising, an average CO2 emission of 5 tonnes would drive the planet into a state of climate crisis. To achieve the needed reduction of global CO2 emissions to check climate change, average world CO2 emissions need to be brought down to 2.5 tonnes per capita by 2030. In India 150 million people who today earn more than 8,000 rupees per month already emit more than 2.5 tonnes CO2 per annum (sustainable global average per capita CO2 emission). To create the space for the remaining 980 million people in the country to develop without heating the planet above 2 degrees Centigrade, India needs to find ways to reduce the CO2 emissions of the upper 150 million people. Conclusions This study clearly shows that Indian climate politics fall short if it only refers to national per capita CO2 levels. As at the international level, where there is common but differentiated responsibility, there needs to be an intra-national common but differentiated responsibility too. Developed nations need to cut their CO2 emissions not only to prevent climate change but also to give space to the developing world to catch up, without cooking the planet. The same is true within India; if the upper and the middle class do not manage to check their CO2 emissions, they will not only contribute to global warming, they will also deny the hundreds of millions of poor in the country, those who will be the most severely impacted by climate change, access to development. As long as economic growth is not decarbonised, the simplistic view that economic growth will automatically result in an increase in prosperity for all stands disproved. It is now accepted by scientists and economists that increasing CO2 emissions due to economic development will destroy the foundation of millions of livelihoods on this planet. In order to build social justice in the country, India not only has to put pressure on the developed world to cut their CO2 emissions, it also needs to do its share to mitigate climate change. So does India need to stay poor and should the burgeoning middle class stop consumption and abandon the newfound upward mobility? Not necessarily, if it manages to decarbonise its development. Excerpted with permission from ‘Hiding Behind the Poor’, a report by Greenpeace on climate injustice, October 2007, authored by Ananthapadmanabhan, K Srinivas and Vinuta Gopal InfoChange News & Features, November 2007
|
