 for the Shankar IAS Academy. Today, we discuss the Leader Summit on Climate hosted by President Joe Biden in Washington. President Joe Biden has kept his promise relating to climate change. On the very first day as president, he returned to United States, returned to the Paris Agreement. He appointed a special negotiator, special on one former Secretary of State, John Kerry, to deal with the issue. He held certain meetings in different countries, including India and China. And then he called a meeting of important countries concerned with climate change. It was held in Washington on 22nd and 23rd April. The consultations and the discussions showed that there has been an evolution on the thinking on climate change since the Paris Agreement. As you all know, the Paris Agreement had decided that every member country of the United Nations must make a declaration of the greenhouse gas emissions reduction that they are willing and able to bring about. And on that basis, the United Nations was supposed to consider the offers and come to see whether this was adequate to meet the climate change problem. But now it's a slightly different approach. Now the approach is to ask every country as to when it can become a carbon-free economy. This is by way of persuading all countries to fix a target for a zero-carbon situation in each of these countries. At the moment, the only country which has accomplished this are neighbor, Utah. So the President himself took the lead in saying that the United States itself will be carbon-free by 2050. And reductions will be carried out in a stable manner or a continuous and steady manner. And the expectation is that the United States will be totally carbon-free by 2050. So he has just set an example by making this promise and is trying to persuade other countries to follow suit. So instead of, like Paris Agreement, instead of just asking people to give the amount of carbon which they can reduce over a period of time, you set a target, a framework, and work towards it. And they thought that could be a good way to deal with this. The participants in this conference or this summit were basically the US held major economic forum on energy and climate. Plus, some other countries which have shown climate leadership, strong climate leadership, especially vulnerable to climate impact, and those who have shown innovative pathways to reducing carbon. A few members of the business and civil society were also invited. So President Biden said that he pledged that US would reach zero emission by 2050, as I said, and also reduce emissions by 50% by 2030. So two figures, one, by 2030 what would be the reduction that they are able to bring about and when it will be able to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions. And for that, also, you fixate. Others followed. Brazil, for example, was once considered to be a second Trump in the matter of climate. Pleased that illegal deforestation will be reduced by 2030. And carbon neutrality would be accomplished by 2050 at the United States. Japan promised a reduction of 46% by 2030. originally it was only 26% that they indicated. And net zero by 2050. Canada similarly said 40% to 45% by 2030 and net zero by 2050. So these are generally countries which are close to the United States. And they may have agreed on this even before they came to the summit. Russia, slightly different approach, they said they would significantly reduce emissions in 30 years. They have not given any figures. China is very significant here because like in the Paris Agreement, the change that took place of voluntary emissions came as an agreement between United States and China. So John Kerry was in Beijing. And after their consultations there, there was a joint statement saying that both sides were committed to the reduction of greenhouse gases. And China said that they would reach peak emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060. Of course, the commitments made in a joint statement were not fully satisfactory because soon after the meeting, both John Kerry and the Chinese said that there are apprehensions about the commitment of each country into this particular agreement. So US has now decided that they would work towards this. Israel and Korea talked about reduction of cold uses, but they did not mention any particular commitment. So the whole question is whether these commitments or these offers or these pledges would lead to any difference in the situation in climate. For example, let us take the United States. If the United States has to fulfill the pledge that they have made, they will have to make many changes drastically. And that has been the problem with the United States because their industry, their economy, their business leaders have always been saying that if they make considerable direction of greenhouse gas emissions, the leadership of the economy of the world will dwindle. So this is the challenge that they have. They need to change policies drastically. They have to replace millions of gas-using cars, cut down cold use, then roles limiting to fossil fuel use will have to be also reduced. And for that, you need that they need new technology. So all these situations considered, it is not considered realistic for the United States to acquire this kind of a situation. And this, I suppose, applied to other countries also. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who participated in these discussions, took a slightly different line. He did not provide any new targets for either reducing emissions or for completely eliminating greenhouse gas emissions in India. But he pledged to install 450 gigawatts renewable energy by 2030. So that is one way of saying that by reducing or increasing renewable energy, we may be able to manage without cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Because the whole debate is whether developing countries can cut greenhouse gas emissions without losing the economic growth. So what he's suggesting that he's not suggesting that we'll reduce emissions, he's saying that we will create sustainable lifestyles and renewable energy by 2030. And he's also saying that these kinds of targets are not realistic unless the developed countries go back to sustainable lifestyles. They have to reduce their consumption, conspicuous consumption. And he also made an important point that the guidance of the philosophy of back to the basics should be adopted in the sense that there have been several agreements reached in the past. As we move along and change our direction and change our targets, we should not forget the basic agreements that we had reached in the past. So the developing countries should have affordable access to green finance and clean technology. And he also pointed out that the grave threat, the climate change continues to be a grave threat at the time of the pandemic. While all of us are greatly involved in dealing with the pandemic, the climate change threat has only been increasing. And therefore he restated some of the principles that are necessary to be adopted, like funding, like technology, et cetera, and without reducing greenhouse gas emissions. By creating new technology in order to use renewable energy, developing countries may be able to reduce their emissions. So he did not follow the pattern of the other countries but mentioned that we are also doing things which wouldn't make India reduce its greenhouse gas emissions or reduce its carbon output. So what has happened in the Washington Summit is a new approach to the whole problem. And we know the long journey on climate change starting from 1972 in Stockholm, where Mrs. Gandhi raised this whole question of the linkage between development and the environment. And 20 years later, the conference on environment and development which has held in Rio de Janeiro. And that was really the golden period, I should say, of climate change negotiations when some very important principles were laid out, like the principle that all nations are common but differentiated responsibilities, indicating that some countries have more responsibilities than the others because they are the ones who have used the resources of the world indiscriminately. So the recognition that the developed countries should do more and developing countries must continue to develop themselves has a very significant principle which has adopted in the Rio de Janeiro conference. There was also an agreement that when we talk about emissions and when you calculate them, these emissions should be calculated on a per capita basis. For instance, a huge country like India or China, the emissions may be bigger because of the bigger populations. But if you divide per head these emissions per capita, then you will find that India and China are far below the other developed countries. For example, in the United States, if it is 11 tons of carbon per individual, India and China may be only 3 or 4 tons of carbon emissions. So these were some of the fundamental agreements which had reached in Rio de Janeiro. But we know that gradually the developed countries had moved away from this. And that is why in the first European itself, first concepts of parties, in Berlin itself, the developed countries began arguing that they will not do much about this unless the major emitters of the developing and of the developing countries must also accept mandatory reductions. This was not acceptable to us. And we maintained that position in Berlin in 1995, which led to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. But the great crisis came when the Kyoto Protocol followed the decisions of 1992 of Rio de Janeiro. The developed countries refused to accept that. Many countries, including the United States, refused to accept the Kyoto Protocol. And they wanted a renegotiation of all these principles. And that is where the big break came about. If the Rio principles were followed as it was decided in Kyoto, and if that protocol was adopted, the story of the climate change would have been different. But the developed countries changed their tactics and they wanted to get out of this idea as mandatory emission cuts for the developed countries. And that is what resulted in the very controversial decision in Copenhagen in 2009. In Copenhagen, what happened was people started feeling that if something was not done, something was not changed, the Kyoto Protocol will not be implemented. And therefore, this whole exercise done till then would be wasted. So five major countries are together, including our Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohar Singh, at that time. And they devised a new strategy, which was called the Copenhagen understanding. And this was done by a few countries. Most of the developing countries were not involved in it. But India accepted this approach because we felt that if we did not agree to that, nothing would be done. So an agreement was made that instead of reduction of emissions, either mandatorily or by compulsion or by persuasion, let everybody do emissions control voluntarily. This was a dramatic change in the approach. Instead of the developed countries having mandatory cuts and developing countries not having mandatory cuts, everyone would have voluntary cuts. And this was the agreement that was reached in Copenhagen. But when this was announced to the general body of the conference that was huge protests, most developing countries walked out of the conference and countries like India, China, Brazil, United States were accused of changing the pattern that was established in Rio de Janeiro. But in actual fact, what happened was the Copenhagen understanding was a creation of secret negotiations between the United States and China. And when they presented it there, the other countries like India, Brazil also accepted it. And that is how the Copenhagen understanding came about. So it took a long time for this solute solving this problem because most developing countries were totally against it. But over a period of time, a new agreement was reached. And that is the agreement that is known as the Paris Agreement of 2015. So I mentioned this long journey because very important changes took place in the approach of the countries, the world to emission market. So meanwhile, we also want to know that the situation was getting worse and worse and the danger arising out of global warming and climate change was coming nearer. So on the one hand, there was a compulsion based on scientific evidence for something to be done. And on the other hand, developing countries asking for an equitable formula, an equitable regime, which all of us could adopt. So Paris Agreement, the fundamental position that Paris Agreement took was that it is very important to make sure that the global temperature should not go beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius. If that happens, then you cannot reverse the climate change that's already set in. So this was the target. The target was fixed in Paris. But the essential thing that all of us are to ensure is that the global temperature does not go beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius. So the voluntary figures were collected. All countries gave their figures. And the United Nations calculated the impact of the change and they found that even if they were all implemented, the warming, the temperature will go up by something like 3 degrees Celsius, which means Paris Agreement is of no value. And this is what President Trump said, but he said it differently and therefore it was criticized. But everybody knew that unless something drastic was done to the Paris Agreement, the climate change cannot be reversed. So from 3 degrees Celsius, we all have to come down to 1.5 degrees Celsius. And the mechanism there was that after five years, all countries will review the commitments they have made and will make adjustments so that we can bring the temperature down to 1.5 degrees Celsius or below. So this was the concern that was being considered in various fora. And what President Biden has done to bring in this new element of not merely telling them voluntary cuts of a limited quantity to set a framework for final solution. This sounds better because they are saying that there will be carbon brief by 2050, half carbon by 2030. But they sound very bad. But what is the process? How do they reach that? Is it realistic? Is it also fair to ask the developing countries also to set this kind of framework when they have tremendous need for use of energy, conventional energy, which is available to countries like South Korea or India or China? They all have whose coal deposits. How do we avoid using coal for example? And how do you substitute it with other renewable sources of energy? So this question still remains. So this whole decision of the summit in Washington or the pledges made by the various countries will now be taken to Glasgow, where the next conference of parties will be meeting this year in November. So here we see the same kind of process like in Copenhagen, a kind of agreement we reached among a few countries. And then that is sold to the rest of the world. And then if that is inadequate, then they look at yet another approach. So that is what the Washington Summit has done. They have, many of them, given the pledges. And the idea is to take this as a model and other countries should also give pledges. And that is why our Prime Minister did not go into that issue at all. He simply said that I'm going to increase my renewable energy sources, which means automatically that much less of carbon will be consumed in India also. But he pointed out very clearly that setting these targets and making these pledges may not be sufficient unless we go back to the basics, go back to the principle that carbon dioxide emissions must be controlled by the developed countries by changing their lifestyles, by changing their habits using our air conditioners, cars, the so-called 10 cents per gallon economy that they are developing these countries. And they are showing no concern for that. But they believe that they can achieve this through new use of technology. So when the whole conference is held in Glasgow, the developing countries will be faced with this compulsion as it were, or making the same kind of pledges. And they are not likely to like India has given an indication. China is not doing that. China is willing to give some indication of the conclusion of it by 2016. So they are closer to the United States. But the large majority of the countries will be on the side of India, which will demand action by the developed countries in terms of financing, in terms of technology, in terms of change of behavior. In other words, climate justice, about which our prime minister has been speaking about. So between now and November, I think a tremendous amount of pressure will be exerted on developing countries to come around to these kind of pledges. And that is what we have to see in Glasgow. There again, pressure will be on us to do something. Because developed countries will say that we stick to our vision of 2050 and 2060 and 2030, et cetera. And therefore, the developing countries should also do that. So whether they will accept that, whether it will be materialized like in the Paris Agreement, and a new kind of Glasgow agreement will be formed by which the targets will be enshrined in them. But in an agreement tradition, ask each country to make a commitment. And that is what the US and China and some other countries like Japan, Canada, and even Brazil are applying to. But our prime minister's note of dissent was very significant, though it was not discussed, because each leader nearly put forward its views and there was no discussion, because everything was online also. So this is where we stand after the Washington Summit. So between now and November, many consultations will be held. Mr. Kiri will travel to many more countries and try to persuade all countries to establish some kind of a target. And unfortunately, even if these targets are set, there is no guarantee that it will be formed. And therefore, again, we may go back to the Paris situation, where the action taken is not adequate to meet the targets. So we can reach the 1.5 degrees Celsius increase by doing all the tests. Meanwhile, the pandemic itself is, of course, a kind of symptom of the climate situation in the world. And that is something which people are tackling, very difficult situation. Almost all countries are affected by it, because the focus is not on climate change, but on the pandemic. So simultaneously, two challenges have to be faced by all the countries in the world, particularly the developing countries. So Washington Summit, maybe it has opened a new era of negotiations, but we cannot in all conscience say that this is likely to lead to any kind of solution. This is an initiative, honestly taken up by President Joe Biden, but the reality of the situation has to be taken into account. And no false hopes should be raised. Thank you very much.