 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. We are taking a brief overview of COP26 as it is going on in Glasgow. What are the possibilities? What is the guarantees or promises that different countries have given including India? We have with us Dira Gunandan who has been following these issues for a long, long time. Let us have a look at what is the carbon budget? How much of climate possibilities exist given the carbon budget we have? If we look at the major figures which keep on coming around about, it is really 1850 to now that we calculate the carbon budget because that is in fact the bulk of the carbon that is in the atmosphere today is supposed 1950. But if we take the carbon budget from 1850 and look at what would be called the historical responsibilities and we look at what is the remaining budget because that would give us at least an idea of what the countries have used of how much of the global carbon budget. Of course, this is not really a budget. This is the total carbon space that we are talking about because budget would have some allocation which we haven't really done. So looking at that, if we want to stay within 1.5 degrees centigrade which is what everybody is talking about, we seem to have a remaining carbon budget of only 14 percent of what we had probably from 1850 but bulk of it from really 1950. So given this, are the COP26 negotiations, discussions, are the commitments being made look that this is possible or we are going to overshoot it significantly? Given this budget that we have left and given the commitments already made covered under the nationally determined contributions, the NDCs. Which is the Paris Agreement commitments. Paris Agreement commitments of each country. If you discount that, the amount left is extremely little. So if COP26 is asking people to go beyond what Paris Agreement has said, it leaves almost nothing. So it is known whether you go by carbon budget or you go by cumulative flows of emissions that the chances of reaching 1.5 as far as COP26 is concerned, it is COP26 has not taken us any further than what we were at the time of Paris. Just marginally different. It is now estimated that before COP26, if you continued along the lines even given the NDCs of countries, you are looking at a 2.7 degrees rise. To quickly tell our audience or viewers, when you said NDCs is nationally declared commitments. That is right. And now with all the additional commitments, people have made cajoling and twisting their arms, etc. Even though some people are saying in Glasgow, we have done well, we have got this, we have got that, the current estimates are instead of 2.7 degrees, you may hit 2.4, which is not doing anything to your 1.5 target. The 1.5 was constantly being emphasized saying, even 2 degrees is too much. If we allow it to reach 2 degrees, we are going to have unacceptable damage. So we need to bring it down to 1.5 because that is what the Paris Agreement said, that we want to reach well below 2 degrees, perhaps try for 1.5. Again, for our viewers, the point is when you have 1.5 degree average increase in temperature, which is what it really is, then it is possible and it is probable that there would be areas, particularly in large parts of the world, which are already hot, to see a temperature rise, which is about 2, even 3 degrees. And that for a lot of these places might make it almost impossible to live in these spaces. And this is really the challenge. And in fact, one of the problems of the global warming scenario is those countries, like as you can see the United States, of course the European Union, if you put them together, they also have a very large contribution. If you take these countries, which are really what would be called the colder countries, there they have exhausted many times their carbon budget. And effectively, therefore, those who are the tropical regions like Africa, large parts of Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia, South Asia, all of them have very little budget left. But they are going to be hit the hardest. While countries which are cold, which have also taken up major part of the carbon space will have, in fact, unfortunately less consequences. And that's why they seem to be quite complacent about it. Well, just two things I'd like to add on that. First is this year, with the heat waves and the forest fires that we saw, particularly in North America, cities, villages and towns, even in Canada, have experienced temperatures of 50 degrees Celsius, which is unthinkable. So even the temperate zone countries which are well into the cold regions have experienced all kinds of impacts. The heat waves, the forest fires in North America, the floods in Northern Europe have been incredible. And in fact, it brought home to these colder climes. They earlier thought this is a problem that's going to hit them. The developing countries, poorer countries, the tropics and etc. But no, this time it's come to hit them. The second point is about COP26 and the budget. I think the biggest mistake at COP26 of all the countries led, of course, by the US and its friends in the developed world is that the focus has gone off 2030. And the US has succeeded in a sense in shifting the focus to 2050 by this whole debate on net zero by 2050, etc. The point is if you really wanted to make a dent on emissions, on the budget, on cumulative flows, the focus has to be on the medium term emissions till 2030. If you don't do that, then whatever you promise in 2050 is going to do no good because you would have crossed the threshold to reach 1.5. In fact, that is a very critical issue that you bring out that you have to front load your commitments, not back load. Exactly. And what the US wants is to back load, talking about 2050. That's right. That means you continue as if your business as usual till at least your presidential period is over, even if Biden stays for the second term, which is doubtful. But most of the leaders today won't be around, obviously. So what you do is back load. So the responsibility of the problems that is faced by electorally a different set of leaders. Absolutely. And because the US in particular, because it was, it fell way behind where the Europeans had reached between 1990 and 2010, because the US was going hot and cold over Kyoto. Yes, no. The pullout of Kyoto. Right. So the US actually was emitting, had emitted 17% more emissions from 1980 till about 2008, 2010, while the Europeans were cutting according to the Kyoto protocol. So the Americans know that they have lost ground in terms of commitment. They know they can't do fast commitments now with all the political shenanigans inside the US. And that's why they want to throw the focus at 2050. Offers the issues as usual. It's also interesting because whatever commitments Mr. Biden might make today, the reality is that he's going to lose probably the House and the Senate in 2022. And it's possible that his successor will be again a Trump or a Trumpian figure, who will again walk out of the climate agreement, as we have seen repeatedly. And that's why the argument that the US is no longer treaty capable, but it's still given its size sets the agenda. Absolutely. And also it's important to realize that because the developed countries hold the purse strings, they are insisting, while they should look at, for instance, gas as an intermediate fuel, so which can be used to shift from coal to gas and then to renewables. But they're insisting, for instance, Norway, major gas producer is insisting that Africa should not use, it should not finance. No financial institutions should give loans for anything which uses even gas. Now, these are the kind of policies that that's coming out because these are not discussed at COP26. These are being done bilaterally or outside the framework of COP26. Coming back to India, India's made some commitments, the Prime Minister, for instance, has talked about what we will do in terms of 2030. Now, of course, we've also said net zero by 2070, but taking cue from what you have said that we should really look at 2030 as the immediate issue, here are the commitments that he has made. Now, originally, and these are the original figures, what we would, what we're looking at is by 2030, India would have installed 295 gigawatts of fossil electricity, fossil capacity, and non-fossil capacity was going to be 525 gigawatt. Additional 64 gigawatts and 383 gigawatts that is 2021 to 2030. Here, if you take what the Prime Minister has said, what we're saying is we're not going to put in the 64 gigawatt because already out of that, roughly half of it is already under construction. So are we saying that we will probably add only about a fraction of the 64 gigawatt we are talking about? Is that what we are saying? What I find significant about the Prime Minister's statement on this issue, which is one of the five commitments he made at Glasgow. In fact, there was another commitment about 50 percent, although he used the phrase 50 percent energy, officials later clarified that he meant installed capacity. So these two really roll into one. What I find significant about this is that without saying so in so many words, the Prime Minister essentially has said that going forward from now, the additional installed electricity generation capacity in India is going to not come as much from coal as it is going to come from renewables, non-fossil fuel sources. If you take the figures over here. And if you take the figures here, we are going to add maybe another 60 odd gigawatts of coal-based power, about half of which is committed on the way, etc. Compared to close to 400 odd additional installed capacity of renewables or non-fossil fuels. Almost six and a half times to seven times. And even more significant is the fact that you are only adding about 50, 60 gigawatts of coal. Whereas there has been such a big furor about India, coal, it is a major threat to the world, etc. I am surprised that India having made this commitment is not making more out of this and emphasizing the importance of this. Prime Minister has made an announcement, but then it just went out and there has been no consistent effort to explain, elaborate what this actually means. So the percentage increase of our coal-based power is significantly going to be lower than the renewables. And renewables we are actually committing and I am skeptical how effectively we can meet this target. It is a very ambitious target. So looks like three and a half to four times of our capacity, current capacity as renewables. That is right. And that is very significant. And you are right. I too am skeptical about this because the last time we had made such a commitment was after Paris. We submitted our NDC at Paris. Meanwhile, the new Modi government at that time which had come in in 2014 had committed to increase what was earlier promised in the National Action Plan on Climate Change was 20 gigawatts of solar. And the Modi government said we will do 100 gigawatts of solar and another 75 of wind and other renewables. So, total of 175 by 2022. Now the NDC incorporated that promise, but the NDC was meant for 2030. So it made it look as if we are going to achieve 175 by 2030 which gave India a lot of room for maneuver. But we are now virtually at 2022. India has only managed 101 or so gigawatts of renewables. So we were not even able to meet that target of 175. There were various constraints, land, investment, etc., etc., coming in. So, making a commitment of such a large expansion in renewables, it's brave, but we don't know. Serious consequences. For our viewer again, that when you say non-fossil includes hydro, which is of course also renewable in the larger scheme of things, nuclear, which is a very small fraction in India. In fact, it is in total terms of install capacity. It's not significant. And of course, the other part, which are what is conventionally called the renewables is wind as well as solar. These are the two major. Just a small point on this. Both hydro and nuclear in India seem to have more or less plateaued out in terms of our capability of installing. In hydro, the Himalayas are now saturated. And there's too many problems in the Himalayan region for you to do more hydro. That only leaves the northeast. And northeast, the resistance to large hydros because of displacement, environmental problems is also increasing very fast. So I think the window on large hydro as well as on nuclear, again due to local protests, is dwindling. So essentially, we are talking solar and wind. Solar and wind. Of course, the hydro has a different role in this kind of grids. And this is not for today's discussion that the renewables part have the problem about daily variation and seasonal variation. And hydro can take care of seasonal variations as well. And I think that's a very significant mark for the hydro. Of course, vis-a-vis the 175 gigawatt commitment, compared to the 400 odd that we are projecting for 2030, there's going to be these additional problems of we'll be able to have the storage for this. So that's that's that's that's why those issues are interesting because normally the west or the advanced capitalist countries have talked about battery. But as Tejal and I and others have been working on, there is a very, very important element that can be done by hydro acting as a effectively pump storage and acting as as if it's a battery of the system. And we have seen the seasonal variations for Germany this year did not have enough wind. So increases fossil emissions because of that. So that is also the issue that how do you manage seasonal imbalance? If you're basically basing yourself on your daily storage in a battery. Coming back to the last point that we have, all of this issue is not really just carbon emissions because carbon dioxide is not a polluted. It's basically global warming gas and it has an effect long term effect on the temperature. And as we have already discussed, what its impact could be on livability of the globe, particularly in hotter countries. And as you pointed out, because of extreme weather events also in the global north, it's not going to be as comfortable as a thought it might be with less temperature going up. The question that is there is energy. And how does countries like Africa, India is also part of that, though it cannot really ask for money because we have declared ourselves as if we are a developed country, which we are not. But large parts of Africa are today in a condition where the energy needs are still not being met. Forget about the developmental needs that they have. But if we really go the way we are going and the remaining part of the space is taken up, then we are going to see that these countries will not be able to do what their energy resources they have, it will even use that for their own development. Hydrocarbon resources exist in Africa. So the question of finances therefore become much more critical. Absolutely. And what we are not seeing in COP26 is any commitment regarding finances. See, that is the other point I wanted to come to, which is COP26 has failed in terms of commitments to cut as required, particularly by the developed countries. The Paris Agreement and assessments of the IPCC etc. have said we should be halving global emissions, bringing them to half of what they are by the year 2030. We are actually going right now looking at increase of about 16%. So we are nowhere near where we should be in terms of emission reductions. We are also nowhere near where we should be in terms of financial commitments. The figure of 100 billion dollars a year has been going around since Paris. But every year when the summit comes and you talk about it, it is always tomorrow, tomorrow, we will do this, we will do that. And just on the eve of the Glasgow summit, the developed countries together said, we are not going to do this now, we are going to do this in 2023. So the further down the road you push. No, no, delink the commitment of finance with the commitment to cut. So there are two things here. One is you are pressing for emission reductions on the one hand, but you are not giving money on the other. And the more you delay giving the money, the global south is already facing adaptation issues, huge costs because of damage that is being done. They are unable to tackle that also. So you have tied both their hands behind their back in terms of dealing with the problems of climate and building capacity to lower emissions on energy. And then you are saying but we need to get more ambitious. It is just not possible. Ambitious for the poorer countries, not ambitious for themselves. And also interestingly enough, delinking the question of finances from the question of commitments of emissions. And of course, India has now made the point about one trillion dollars. How does one trillion dollars come? I wanted to come to that. Having made these commitments, which were also sort of out of the blue. And of course, our Prime Minister is famous for making these sudden pronouncements. He has been doing it consistently. Demolitization. Demolitization, GST, the lockdown. He loves doing this overnight. And the announcement comes in a context where nobody else in government seems to be seems to be aware. All the officials, ministers of the government, even in Glasgow, till the Prime Minister speech were saying no net zero commitments. We are not going to raise our ambitions compared to what we said at Paris. And then the Prime Minister comes around. Of course, it adds to his mystique and is the aura around him that he wants to create. That is another issue. But having done all that and made these commitments, which coming from a position where India was not going to do anything, then to come to these commitments. And after everything is done, now officials are starting to say, but all these are conditional upon receiving substantial financial support from the developed countries. And now they are putting a number on it, which is a trillion dollars over a 10 year period. To my mind, this calls into question the entire commitment made. Tomorrow you can say we just can't do it because nobody gave us a trillion dollars. So what is this, these announcements amount to number one. And number two, I don't know where this figure of a trillion dollars has come from, whether it's realistic or not. I mean, the developed countries have just agreed to give South Africa eight billion dollars to make the transition away from coal. So you could argue that there is a position for receiving some money. But if India expects to receive as much as a trillion dollars, it doesn't leave very much for Africa, the least developed countries for the island nations, etc. And like you said, India on the one hand has been tom-tomming how great an economy we are, five trillion dollar economy, we are going to reach and we are among the leading countries in the world with the fastest GDP growth, etc. And then you stick out your hand for a trillion dollars. It doesn't strike the right note if you ask me. It's interesting, the trillion dollars is the same amount which the Paris Agreement said will be given to rest of the world for making the transition from rich countries, that's 100 billion every year for 10 years, which of course they didn't bother to give the poorer countries, forget India. And now, if we say what they did not give the entire amount should come to us in the next 10 years, it appears to be a bargaining ploy, maybe a tactic to really negotiate further, but it doesn't really add luster to India's position of COP26 and international affairs. Thank you for being with us. We are going to watch the end of COP26 and come back to you with more issues flowing out of COP26, what could have been done, what wasn't done and what has been agreed in COP26 once it happens. But otherwise, people watching from the sidelines of scientific community have said the commitments are not commensurate with what we need. In fact, fall woefully short and the financial commitments as Rahu explained has already been dealing. So, all these are promises being made on a bank which does not exist. Thank you very much for being with us. Do keep watching NewsClick and do visit our website.