“No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be”. Isaac Asimov’s words of the 20^th century offer a simple guideline to political, scientific and technological policy makers on climate change, the single subject that should be occupying centre-stage, worldwide.

But no Government wants to face reality yet. And so we continue to see that ‘economic’ is the single-most forceful, there-is-no-alternative kind of prefix to the politicized words ‘development’ and ‘progress’. So much so, policy makers think only ‘within the box’; consistently and insistently harping on the idea that a nation is developed if its people have money power, in varied degrees. 

That the US admits that it has made mistakes and wishes that such nations as India do not commit those same mistakes, is laudable, but not enough.

On the one hand we have the arguments for and against equity when it comes to investing in new technologies that reduce further damage to our environment, that is, “calculations of burden sharing should be based on historical responsibility and the capacity to pay”.

On the other hand, there are millions of energy-deprived citizens who had no hand in contributing to the environmental mess. Be that as it may, there are no two ways about the path to be taken by much of the developing world, populous India and China included. We need to think well beyond the much touted methods and standards of ‘development’.

Were we to examine objectively, and intelligently balance protection of environment and economic interests, we would be taking the right path. This principle was laid down in the Rio de Janeiro Declaration on Environment and Development of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992), whose substance is set down in the following points:

Principle 1: Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.

Principle 3: The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.

Principle 4: In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.

Principle 15: In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by states according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

India can be proud of an Indian Supreme Court ruling earlier in this decade – M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 2004 SC 4033): “In such matters [involving actions that pose a threat of serious or irreversible damage], many a time the preferable option is not clear. If an activity is allowed to go ahead, there could be irreparable damage to the environment; if it is stopped, there could be irreparable damage to economic interests. In case of doubt, however, protection of environment should take precedence over economic interest. The Precautionary Principle requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm. This harm can be prevented even on a reasonable suspicion. It is not always necessary that there should be direct evidence of harm to the environment.”

No nation’s development path can afford to continue to be carbon-intensive, allowing its total emissions to indefinitely rise. It is time for India, indeed every country, to abandon present practices and instead place highest priority on energy efficiency in lighting, transport, and power generation, reducing the energy-intensity of industrial production and funding efficient public transport. The GHG's don’t know which country spewed them, but they impact all nations. Ideally, each country can aim at lower targets, taking the 450ppm limit not as a “That much is allowed to me” right, but as a “Better not go near that level” duty.

India actually is at a potentially ennobling crossroad. By identifying and implementing the right initiative, India can avoid the ecological catastrophes that have happened elsewhere. With millions of poor, India does have a great Problem, but one that is a greater Opportunity. Yes, we can work towards developing poor sections of society in an "ecologically sustainable, contentedly simple, and environmentally sane way”.

If every country tried to outdo the other in solving our Climate Crisis, it would no longer be a Crisis. Let's all look at emissions reduction not as an imposition; but as a challenge; the solutions will come of their own accord.

Further reading:

• http://www.scidev.net/en/opinions/indias-pragmatic-approach-to-climate-change.html
• http://www.whatswiththeclimate.org/2009/06/04/is-india-questioning-the-science/
• http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/275342,india-vows-cooperation-on-climate-change-but-not-at-economic-cost.html
• http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/28/stories/2009072855110800.htm

Other cool stuff on Celsias:

Too Little, Too Late: The Politics of Climate Change
Learning from Past Civilisations

Follow us on Twitter: Celsiastweets