An indispensable evil!

The Global Renewables and Energy Efficiency Pledge at COP28 in Dubai stipulated the 'phase out' of fossil fuels alongside tripling the production of renewable energy sources by 2030. While countries including the EU, Norway, the US, Canada, Colombia, etc. have endorsed the pledge, many others such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, India, and some African nations have chosen to stay away. Uganda has put forth a condition, stating that developing countries must be allowed to exploit their fossil fuel resources in the near term to meet their agenda of poverty eradication and achieve robust growth rates. This division has triggered a dispute on fossil fuel consumption versus action against climate change.

India, emerging as the leader of the global south, proven by its successful presidency of the G-20, wherein momentum was built for COP28 with profound declarations on climate action, such as tripling global renewable energy capacity, has emphatically demanded that "equity and climate justice must be the basis of global climate action." India took a historic stand by calling out the rich nations of the West as historically responsible for the rise in global temperatures and insisted on 'phase down' of fissile fuels instead of 'phase out.' Despite fossil fuels contributing to 90 per cent of CO2 emissions and 80 per cent of GHGs, two-thirds of the energy requirements of the global south are solely dependent on fossil fuels. It is a 'necessary evil', for it fuels economic development necessary to address hunger, poverty, health, and unemployment in developing nations. Hence, the demand for 'phase down' in place of 'phase out.' India's stand seems to have influenced a significant number of other nations too, as the new draft final agreement on December 12 in COP 28 has watered down the language on fossil fuels from 'phase out' to 'transition away.' However, it was decided to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption and do not address energy poverty or just transitions. It remains to be seen whether the agreement will be adopted by all 198 countries.

Even though developed nations advocate the phase-out of coal in various climate talks, the intent needs reassurance because firstly, a similar commitment regarding other fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas is conspicuous by its absence, and secondly, the 'Coal phase-out' is yet to kick off even in countries like the US, Germany, and the UK, which depend up to 80 per cent exclusively on coal even today. On the contrary, developing nations are caught up in a catch-22 situation. Even as they bear the brunt of climate change the most in comparison to developed countries, they cannot afford to waive their natural right to use fossil fuel resources. Their economies would come to a grinding halt if they do. Mitigation measures by developed countries, in view of historical responsibility and their higher growth rates, are much warranted to facilitate the global south with a breathing space in chasing their desired growth rates. The 'free rider problem' (all countries benefiting from emission reduction by a few countries) should not dissuade the more capable countries from attending to their moral obligation, which benefits the environment and mankind as a whole. Besides, Western nations with export-oriented economies should be more considerate, as the global south provides them with the largest market.

Accepting the 'phase-out' of fossil fuels means a quick transition to sustainable zero-carbon models, which entails huge expenditure. Adherence to the Carbon budget (emission limits in tune with the 1.5-degree target of the Paris agreement) in turn calls for enormous climate financing, as poor countries hardly have any surplus fiscal budgets. The global north has enough cushion as it has four times more power capacity than the global south. Since 'phase-out' is impractical, different strategies with shared responsibilities need to be devised. Developed countries should play a pioneering role in sustainable development in their own economies and provide more grants instead of loans to underdeveloped countries toward 'just and orderly transitions' (securing workers' rights and livelihoods of people in the process of shifting to sustainable production). This is not to absolve developing countries of their obligations under the Paris Agreement but to underscore the need for international cooperation and assistance on a global scale. However, the process of 'phase-down' of fossil fuels can be supported in developing countries with liberal technology transfer and targeted funding. This would enable them to move forward with 'adaptation' measures, i.e., adjustments in ecological, social, and economic systems in response to climate change. Country-specific changes in practices and processes can be initiated to protect the interests of stakeholders in accordance with Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC).

The 'phase-down' fossil fuel models should not be seen as undoing action against climate change, provided renewed cooperation between the global north and the global south is forged to the desired levels. Despite the reliance on fossil fuels, many developing countries have registered phenomenal success in renewables. For instance, India's Green Hydrogen Target for 2030 is three times higher than those of Denmark and Sweden, while countries like Chile, Morocco, and Namibia are racing on the path to green energy. Africa has 40 per cent of solar potential but only with 25 installed capacity. Developing countries need assistance from developed countries in ensuring their respective NDCs. The Dubai summit emphasised multilateralism and international cooperation through collective, coordinated, and sustained action on a global scale. COP28, inter alia, has also stressed the need for the acceleration of zero and low emissions technologies, like renewables, nuclear, abatement, including carbon capture and utilisation, storage, and low carbon hydrogen production. However, climate financing is a pestering problem.

When the need for climate finance is projected at USD 340 billion for 2030, developed countries gave only a pittance of USD 29 billion. Broader mechanisms of finances are necessary for a just and orderly transition, which includes private participation as well. However, not only the quantity but the quality of finance also matters. For example, private finance is mostly going into commercial ventures in mitigation, renewables, and green hydrogen when it is most needed in adaptation measures. The share of adaptation in the total climate finance is hardly 20 per cent, whereas millions of people and their livelihoods depend on adaptation. Worse is that funds meant for adaptation are often diverted to 'loss and damage' heads instead of reaching the target groups. We need more grants in sectors like agriculture, forest, water management, and health, etc., since these sectors need adaptation measures. That said, we must also create a pathway for a greener economy with more green jobs. A phase-out of fossil fuels is unthinkable until green technology accelerates and becomes viable as a better bet. Countries in the global south should be encouraged to choose their own models in tune with country specificities, even if it means continuing with the philosophy of phase-down for some time. Long-term support and multilateral collaboration between the global north and the global south are indispensable in the fight against climate change.

The writer is a former Addl. Chief Secretary of Chhattisgarh. Views expressed are personal