The recently concluded G-8 summit, which was held in Italy, once more saw an intense debate on climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. On the positive side, this time around there was no attempt to question or discredit the science behind climate change. For far too long now, climate change negotiations have been marred by industrialized countries (in particular the US) trying to claim that the issue of global warming was being bloated way beyond proportion by environmentalists and doomsday prophets.

However, for those who have been following the climate change negotiations over the years, there was little to cheer about. Predictably, the US remained as obstinate as ever – refusing to commit to reduce even a single tonne of greenhouse emissions unless India and China make similar ‘binding’ commitments. As the United States is one of the world’s largest greenhouse emitters in terms of the total volume of carbon dioxide emissions, this attitude is probably the single main issue that has stonewalled any genuine action on this crucial issue. In terms of per-capita greenhouse gas emissions, the US is way ahead of any another country. As of 2005, India’s annual emissions work out to less than 1.1 tonnes of carbon dioxide per capita, compared to more than 20 tons per capita emissions in the United States. The US shamefully refuses to accept its responsibility, claiming that the American lifestyle is not negotiable!

At the G-8 summit, the ‘developed’ countries agreed to cut 80 per cent of their present emissions by 2050. On the face of it, this might seem like a really positive development. However, when the blueprint of exactly how these reductions could be achieved was announced, the politics of climate change was once again revealed. The super-rich, heavily industrialised countries are planning to “offset” half of their commitment by paying poor countries to cut emissions on their behalf! In other words, rich countries will continue to build coal-burning power plants and use cars while poor countries will bear an additional burden of cutting emissions for which they are in no way responsible. Poor countries will need to cut 42 per cent of their emissions just to absorb carbon “offsets” from the “developed” world. If one adds their own “official”, binding commitments towards carbon dioxide reduction, this amounts to a 60 per cent reduction from their current emissions. Therefore, the blueprint of the G-8 summit essentially means that rich nations will cut their carbon pollution by 40 cent, while poorer nations will cut their carbon pollution by 60 per cent! This is precisely the blatant injustice that we have come to expect as routine fare at the US-UK dominated climate negotiations.

Much has been said about how the US has traditionally held the environment and the people of the entire world to ransom through its stubborn refusal to act on climate change. However, this time the US found itself in a somewhat more comfortable negotiating position because China has decided to officially commit itself to emission reductions. This has put India in a much tougher position, since we are now seen as the sole ‘impediment’ in the climate change talks. There is a now a growing caucus demanding that India should also follow suit and agree to reduce emissions. This demand has found takers amongst many in the Indian environmental movement.

Many environmentalists are now claiming that India is no longer ‘ethically justified’ in its stubborn refusal to accept reductions. The argument is that India’s energy policy is hopelessly unethical, unjust, and designed for exacerbating an environmental catastrophe. Therefore, India should change its position at the global climate change talks. The problem in this demand is the unnecessary linking of two issues – India’s energy policy, and India’s official stand at the climate change talks. One is obviously not arguing that the issues are totally unconnected. However, there is a substantial difference in demanding a more just, pro-poor, and ecologically compatible energy policy from the Indian government and agreeing to reduce reductions at a platform that is notoriously dominated and manipulated by the worst polluters in the world.

The climate change negotiations have always been marked by injustice: poor countries (in particular the global south) have long been held to ransom, having to wait with bated breath while some of the world’s worst polluters try to palm off their responsibility onto the world’s poorest people. We have not forgotten that it is precisely at this platform that the US tried to argue that India and China were as polluting as the US, UK and Russia because cows and paddy cultivation emit methane (a greenhouse gas)! In other words, they equated luxury emissions from factories and cars with subsistence emissions absolutely essential for the poorest of people to survive. That particular attempt of the US to shy away from its responsibility fell through because the science of measuring methane emissions from stomach gas (emitted by cows) and paddy cultivation is notoriously imprecise. However, the developed countries have continued their relentless campaign against poor countries – the latest G-8 negotiations are a good indicator. There is absolutely no reasonable hope that the negotiations will respect justice and equity anytime in the near future. Therefore, a stand against submitting to emission reductions at this platform is essentially a stand against neo-colonialism and imperialism.

This is certainly not to argue that India does not have an ethical obligation to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Pressure will have to be put on the Indian government to develop a pro-poor, sustainable energy policy. However, this pressure must be put on our own terms, with the interests of India’s poor in mind; rather than reductions being shoved down our throats by rich countries on their terms. If we cannot and should not be let off the hook, neither can the likes of the US, the EU and Russia.