The twist is that the reduction in emissions is being proposed by Jairam Ramesh, head of the Ministry of Environment and Forests. And the opposition comes from a small albeit influential section of India's civil society elite that sees this as a sell out to the US and a perpetuation of global climate injustice.
If there is a game plan on the part of Jairam Ramesh or the Indian government to give the US and recalcitrant developed economies an escape route to avoid significant CO2 reductions, it must be strongly opposed. A climate agreement that does not have the US and Annex I countries making sharp cuts in emissions (25-40% below 1990 levels) will serve no purpose.
The debate gets more heated around the issue of India taking domestic action to control its emissions. The UNFCC recommends that in addition to absolute cuts from rich countries, major developing economies need to deviate the growth of their emissions from a Business As Usual scenario by 15-30%, and this is something that Jairam Ramesh appears to support. The opposition so far has come from some climate negotiators and sections of civil society who argue that India must not reduce the growth of its emissions unless the West first commits to significant cuts, and finance and technology transfer to the poor countries. Sounds fair. Or does it?
Why domestic action makes sense
India's Integrated Energy Policy aims to increase generation to 800,000 MW from the current 160,000 MW. 70% of this increase will be coal, 10% large hydro. The massive amount of mining, forest destruction, fresh water and land this will entail would cause further displacement, environmental destruction, lack of clean water and livelihood insecurity.
The last five years have seen rising protests against coal across the country, from farmers in coastal Maharashtra and communities living in the shadow of the Raichur power plant in Karnataka, to others in Himachal Pradesh and Chattisgarh. At Chandrapur and elsewhere across India's “coal belt", dozens of communities are resisting the expansion of open pit coal mines. With the problems caused by mining, pollution from coal power plants, oil extraction and refining and so forth - moving to a low carbon economy certainly makes sense for many thousands of communities across the country whose livelihood security is threatened by both resource extraction and changing weather patterns.
“Reducing our CO2 emissions makes sense for India as it implies a more sustainable model of development, something that communities affected by large dams, mines, coal power plants and other big industrial projects have been demanding for decades", says Ashish Kothari, founding member of Kalpavriksh and a veteran of environmental struggles in India for over 30 years.
The move to a low carbon economy is inevitable as the world's oil supply starts to decline. The International Energy Agency in 2008 estimated that production from all existing oilfields will fall 50% by 2020. Those countries that make the transition fastest will reap significant economic and environmental benefits.
Development for the poor
India must provide reliable energy to the 400 million odd Indians without it. But we must not blindly accept that this will happen with the same development model that has failed so abysmally over the six decades since Independence. This is the risk that we run by opposing all domestic mitigation efforts.
There is growing evidence that a bouquet of decentralized, renewable options (chiefly biogas, solar and wind) can provide far flung rural communities with energy at a much lower environmental and economic cost This is the option that India must invest in, and as a number of studies (including the government's own Solar Mission) show, solar alone has huge potential in India - 20GW by 2020/ 100GW by 2030.
It is vital that India not let the West off the hook in Copenhagen; developed countries have to deliver significant emission cuts of 25% or more by 2020, over 1990 levels. They have to finance clean technologies in the developing world, and set up a fund to curb deforestation in tropical countries. India's position must not waver on these key issues and we must be a leader for the G-77 bloc in this respect.
But there is nothing to stop us from also showing climate leadership by simultaneously taking voluntary domestic action to reduce the growth of our emissions. This makes sense on many levels, but primarily for our domestic environment and the thousands of communities facing the first consequences of our current development model. By pressuring the government not to reduce domestic emissions, we are consigning the nation to more coal plants, more inefficient and polluting transport systems, increased pollution-related illnesses and continuing energy inefficiency.
Anyone who argues against India undertaking voluntary domestic mitigation measures is arguing in favour of prolonging an energy intensive, ecologically damaging model of development that has conspicuously failed to benefit India's poor over the last half century. We will be cutting off our own nose to spite the West.
Ashish Fernandes is a freelance writer and campaigner with Greenpeace India.
