Photo: Shailendra Pandey

What Would you call the Bali conference a success?
Let’s be clear on one thing. The Bali conference was not meant to achieve anything in terms of climate change. It started a process over which there is going to be intense negotiation in the coming years, till some agreed-on outcome is arrived at by December 2009 in Copenhagen. We need to look at Bali in a historical context to ascertain whether it was a success or not, along with the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. In 2005, the Kyoto Protocol was ratified by certain countries to make it effective. So success and failure depend on what objectives those countries came with.

What were the developed world’s objectives?
This is what they said explicitly in the Fourth Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They said science is unequivocal that global warming is going to adversely affect the world. It is time for a comprehensive agreement among all countries, including the developing world and especially the major
emitters (of GHGs).

This comprehensive agreement sought by the developed countries deviates from the historical context you mentioned?
Yes. This meant the dilution of the two-track process, the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. The developed countries were looking for a new and fresh agreement with the purpose of roping in India and China — to get them to commit to reducing emissions along with the developed world. This primary agenda of the developed world was not achieved.

What was India’s plan?
The new agenda was not agreeable to us. We were ready to discharge our responsibility under the two-track process, which had no quantified commitment for the purpose of bringing down pollution from the developing world. I would call it our primary success. America is on board. How important is it? It is very important. Look at the political dynamics. America’s contribution to global pollution is 20 percent. So we all know that unless America is on board we are not going to solve the problem. America has committed itself to actions comparable to the commitment made by other developed nations. But Americans are not as bothered over their own emission levels as over India and China’s. They do not think so (that they are big emitters). They feel that India and China need to be roped in.

Is this factually incorrect?
Yes. Because the per capita emission of India is half the threshold of 2 tonnes per capita. China’s is 4, the EU’s is 10 and America’s is 20 tonnes per capita. The second agenda of the developed world was that the developing countries’ pollution levels and their mitigation efforts should be measurable and verifiable. Our position was that we are willing to enhance the level of our responsibilities provided our mitigation effort is enabled by technology, financial support and capacity building. And all these measures should also be measurable and verifiable, which means establishing linkages between our responsibility and the commitment of the developed world. We prevailed.

Anybody following Bali would get this feeling: the negotiations were all about passing the buck — you do it first. It seemed nobody was concerned about the environment or tuned in to the dangers of the larger picture.
I do not think that’s accurate. Remember that these are very complex things. It’s very difficult for governments to change citizens’ lifestyles. Bringing in a low carbon economy requires a lot of national effort in areas of new technology and alternative sources of energy. Therefore it is contingent upon the commercialisation of clean technology, which is going to take time. We all recognise that we have to work towards a low carbon economy.

You said nations should try to achieve a “minimum level of dissatisfaction”. There is a negative connotation to the phrase.
We can all agree to do certain things, but in multilateral negotiations it does not happen, there are political, economic and financial issues involved. Countries are at different stages of development. The idea is that we can all come out with our minimum level of dissatisfaction.

The developed world will use the same argument to say that it is diff icult for them to change their lifestyle… the developing world should do it, they are in the reformative stage.
Let’s look at it objectively. The developed world has reached a certain level of prosperity. Having reached that level, the imposition of measures for GHG reduction will bring about a certain discomfort but it will not result in poverty. This may have a marginal effect on their way of life. As far as we are concerned, 600 million people in our country do not have electricity. When they do not even have electricity, asking them to change their lifestyle is like condemning them to poverty. Their telling us to do it their way is essentially inequitous.

The question of parity is important. A sizeable population in India hardly consumes GHGs. With development seeping in, they will eventually consume more GHGs, so reduction has to come from people who consume energy in an unsustainable fashion.
Absolutely. They say a sizeable population in India’s 1.1 billion are devils of consumption. To that extent, India should take mitigation measures. This is one of their arguments.

What about those who do not consume at all?
They say it’s fine.

It’s good that we foiled the developed world’s agenda to force a commitment out of us. But what about our own responsibility towards climate change?
Yes. At the multilateral stage, we seek to protect our national interest. We should not forget that as a nation, we owe our children a clean environment.

You have said that India needs energy, it’s on the development curve. Do you feel that economic growth and incorporating environmental safeguards are mutually exclusive?
Not at all. But what happens is that you ultimately embrace a low carbon economy. It requires State support, a policy framework, technology, investment; it requires transfer of technology, indigenous technologies that are appropriate. To be able to do that you need a timeframe, we need time. We can’t throw our industry to the wolves. It will hurt our growth.

But even indications of these changes are not there. Our development model seems to be a replica of the West, which is unsustainable. Are we not caught in the same trap?
No. In fact, we have a great opportunity not to replicate what the West did. For example, it is difficult to persuade someone in California to change their lifestyle if they drive 50-70 miles a day to work. There can be no public transport system. So everybody needs a car. Families have two or three cars each. That cannot be changed. Our Metro links Gurgaon and Noida to Delhi — this is going to be perhaps the most complex system. We have a great opportunity today; our cities are yet to be modelled. We will have far greater access to green technologies.

Are you optimistic that things will change over time?
Things will have to change. There is no choice. Our industry is sensitive. Industry and trade require space and time, a policy framework. We need to communicate to the rest of the world that we are as committed as the others. You have caused the problems, it’s time you compensated us for situations for which you are responsible. We are going to protect our future generation in every way that we can.