Hypocrisy

I have tried my hand writing a script. Unfortunately the script is for a failed climate change programme. The story goes like this – the protagonist is a key part of the climate

change programme but doesn’t really bother about it. It, however, is a part of all key negotiations related to climate change and makes sure that most of the negotiations leaves them in a better position than the last time.

The Story

Timeline: May – 2012

The Scene

On the 17^th of May, 2012 the U.S. Commerce Department imposed duties of as much as 250% on Chinese solar imports, siding with companies including SolarWorld AG (SWV) that said the goods were sold below the cost of production, a practice known as dumping. Eight days later on the 25^th of May, 2012 China launched an official complaint with the World Trade Organisation (WTO). (DS437)

The Geneva-based trade arbiter agreed to set up a panel of judges to investigate China’s allegation that the U.S. acted “inconsistently with WTO rules and rulings in many aspects” during probes to determine whether Chinese companies received illegal government aid.

The two governments have stepped up WTO complaints and rhetoric over access to the others’ markets this year as the global economic crisis crimps trade. The Obama administration says China keeps its currency undervalued and engages in unfair tactics that have led to chronic U.S. trade deficits and the loss of millions of American jobs.

Cracking down on China also emerged as a key campaign issue during the recent U.S. presidential race, with Republican candidate Mitt Romney blaming President Barack Obama for the loss of U.S manufacturing jobs and criticizing him for not declaring China a currency manipulator. Obama has said his administration has lodged trade complaints against China at almost twice the rate of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.

Timeline: February – 2013

The Scene

The United States on Wednesday filed a challenge with the World Trade Organization (DS456) over elements of India’s national solar program, which it said discriminates against foreign solar products in violation of a core global trade rule. The dispute states that the National Solar Mission, launched in 2010, appears to discriminate against U.S. solar equipment by requiring solar energy producers to use Indian-manufactured solar cells and modules and by offering subsidies to those developers for using domestic equipment instead of imports, the U.S. trade office said.

The U.S. representative Ron Kirk said in a statement “Unfortunately, India’s discriminatory policies in its national solar programme detract from that successful cooperation, raise the cost of clean energy, and undermine progress toward our shared objective,”

Hypocrisy

What you just read is a true scenario and within 9 months, from May 2012 to February 2013, the US has been involved with two disputes at the WTO and both of them are similar in nature just that the US was the respondent in the first case and the complainant in the second. It is just unfathomable how thick-skinned the US is when it comes to addressing climate change. This is not the first time that a thing like this is happening – the most common one being the part of all climate change conferences under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change without ratifying to most of its principles. This raises many questions & concerns.

I shall be happy to get comments from the readers of this blog about the approach of the US towards environmental issues.  

Faith in the Negotiations

The Arctic sea ice has just reached its lowest level in thousands of years. In keeping with climate models, the rapid ice-sheet disintegration in the Arctic and warming seas are already fuelling more intense tropical storms. Hurricane Sandy’s intensity and path has been linked to both trends. Small island states in the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean, and the South Pacific are also likely to suffer catastrophic flooding and could in some cases become uninhabitable. Accelerated glacial melt in the Himalayas will compound ecological problems across northern China, India, and Pakistan, initially increasing flooding, before reducing the flow of water to major river systems vital for irrigation. All these catastrophic findings are being read ever so frequently in newspapers across the world.

Way back in 2006 Lord Stern in his report, the Stern Review, said that the cost of inaction towards climate change would be colossal. Six years later, recent estimates suggest that our carbon-intensive economies cost the world around 1.6 per cent of total global GDP. They warn that with the current level of greenhouse gas emissions & carbon pollution, those costs could double by 2030. Therefore it is vital that the costs of inaction are made as visible as the costs of taking action. The longer we wait to act, the more costly the damages and solutions become. The cost curve has already risen steeply.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) warned in April this year that on current energy and emissions trends and policies, global temperatures will climb by at least six degrees Celsius by 2100 – putting the world into a dangerous territory. The costs of inaction are increasingly clear to all, as extreme weather inflicts loss of life and livelihoods and the destruction of property and infrastructure on communities around the world.

I just fail to understand why the world is not doing more to offset the huge multidimensional costs of climate change. For the earth to stay under the two degree Celsius increase in temperature, set as a threshold beyond which there is believed to be catastrophic & irreversible change to our climate, we all need to do much more, first to stabilise and then to reduce emissions radically. But the global negotiations are moving incredibly slowly. The policy responses are lagging well behind where the science tells us they should be. There is a pressing need for an agreement to be found to make a transition to a green and inclusive economy happen. It is imperative that all countries need to be able to adopt clean technologies, boost their energy efficiency, and switch to more sustainable sources of energy and modes of production and consumption without jeopardising their growth prospects.

There are some reasons that come to my mind for a non-agreement on the issue of climate change. A tendency to think short-term rather than long-term, and therefore not to weigh the costs and benefits of tackling climate change appropriately. Short political cycles do not encourage long term thinking, particularly where the upfront costs may be high. While there is reason for concern about the slow progress of the climate change negotiations, it would be disastrous to give up on them.

At Doha, the climate negotiations must focus on implementation of agreements already reached and action to resolve outstanding issues. Current efforts are not delivering at the speed or scale required. All countries can act to head off climate change’s worst impacts while also generating new industries, jobs, and more sustainable and inclusive ways of living.

There is an opportunity for the negotiators from various countries to address some important issues. The burning issue is the need to move on from the lengthy negotiations on a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol to implementation from January 1st 2013. Even though it is well understood that the Kyoto Protocol is dramatically insufficient in its current form, as it covers only ten to twelve per cent of total global greenhouse gas emissions, maintaining it is important because it is legally binding and contains infrastructure and accounting rules which are critical to making a global climate change regime viable. The issues that need to be addressed are the arrangements for climate finance and the transfer of technologies to the developing countries.

Many significant issues remain unresolved in the talks, but nonetheless there are grounds for optimism that the world is moving towards a new global regime to tackle climate change. Perhaps not at the speed and at the scale which the science demands that it should. It is clear that many countries will need help from the international community to be committed to action to cut emissions and that those actions should be real, measurable and verifiable. It is imperative that help should be subject to the same stringent accountability requirements as the emissions-cutting actions themselves. The best way to achieve this is through an international treaty and this yet another reason that such a treaty is worth fighting for at Doha this year.

Bringing about an Energy Revolution

The evidence that climate change is occurring and is caused by human activity is now undeniable and unequivocal. It is also proved by the fact that the last IPCC report was unanimously passed by 130 countries with no dissention. This constitutes an unprecedented level of agreement and acceptance of the fact that “climate change is a real.”

As the world waits for an Energy Revolution to happen, it should be understood that the governments around the world would need to play a major part. Their contribution will include regulating the energy market, both on the supply and demand side, stimulating the market for renewable energy and energy efficiency by a range of economic mechanisms and educating everyone from consumers to industrialists. They can also build on the successful policies already adopted by other countries.

To start with parties need to agree on further binding emission reduction commitments in the second phase of the Kyoto Protocol. Only by setting stringent greenhouse gas emission reduction targets will the cost of carbon become sufficiently high to properly reflect its impact on society. This will in turn stimulate investments in renewable energy. Through massive funding for mitigation and technology cooperation, industrialized countries will also stimulate the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency in developing countries.

Alongside these measures specific support for the introduction of feed-in tariffs in the developing world – the extra costs of which could be funded by industrialized countries – could create similar incentives to those in countries like Germany and Spain, where the growth of renewable energy has boomed. Energy efficiency measures should be more strongly supported through the Kyoto process and its financial mechanisms.

As the global concern vis-a-vis climate change grows and as the threat of climate change is perceived to be real, pressures on India to contain GHG emissions has risen. India should be willing to contain her GHG emissions as long as she is compensated for the additional cost involved.

Carbon markets would most definitely play a distinctive role in making the Energy Revolution happen, although the functioning of the carbon market needs a thorough revision in order to ensure that the price of carbon is sufficiently high to reflect its real cost. Only then can we create a level playing field for renewable energy and be able to calculate the economic benefits of energy efficiency. We should learn from the shortcomings of the EU-ETS, which six years after it was introduces is still looking clouded. With the EU ETS accused of failing to reduce carbon emissions, countries outside Europe delaying companion cap-and-trade systems, and critics charging that the carbon-trading mechanism has opened the door to fraud, profiteering, and “gaming” by participants. Due to this, serious questions have arisen about the future of the EU’s emissions reduction plan. This is something that should be avoided as it leads to mistrust in the system and leads to an oligopoly.

Mitigation on its own, however, is not enough. It is important that we adapt to the unavoidable changes, and adaptation policy measures must be resilient in the face of continued change over many decades. While mitigation policies are vital, the benefits of such policies would not be seen for many years to come, thus making adaptation policies all the more critical.

Energy efficiency perceived as the fastest, cleanest, and cheapest way to meet energy needs. India could save $42 billion each year by largely improving energy efficiency in just the buildings sector. Identifying the groups responsible for the successes of, and obstacles to, energy efficiency is critical to building a roadmap with actions for each stakeholder to capitalize on the opportunity to save energy. It is the fastest and the most economical way to close the energy demand and supply gap. Incorporating efficient windows, lighting and air-conditioning systems at the design stage for new construction is more economical than costly retrofits that developed countries are now being forced to perform. Given this unprecedented growth of new buildings, India has a singular opportunity to lock in lower costs and energy costs and thus more resources for development through energy-efficient design.

Carbon markets would most definitely play a distinctive role in making the Energy Revolution happen, although the functioning of the carbon market needs a thorough revision in order to ensure that the price of carbon is sufficiently high to reflect its real cost. Only then can we create a level playing field for renewable energy and be able to calculate the economic benefits of energy efficiency. We should learn from the shortcomings of the EU-ETS, which six years after it was introduces is still looking clouded. With the EU ETS accused of failing to reduce carbon emissions, countries outside Europe delaying companion cap-and-trade systems, and critics charging that the carbon-trading mechanism has opened the door to fraud, profiteering, and “gaming” by participants. Due to this, serious questions have arisen about the future of the EU’s emissions reduction plan. This is something that should be avoided as it leads to mistrust in the system and leads to an oligopoly.

Also, the importance of water in our everyday life should not be underestimated.  Although it is ever-present, it is also ever changing and as many historians say that the Water would most probably be the reason on which the 3^rd world war would be fought, it becomes extremely important that water is used as a means of cooperation. An integrated water strategy for India, a country characterized by numerous international river basins, is imperative for equitable and sustainable use of river water and since regional water security includes environmental concerns such as climate, water, agriculture and energy, there is a need for an integrated approach towards water. Both civil society and non-governmental actors also have a significant and positive role to play in enhancing water security. A series of dialogues focusing on water related issues both at bilateral and multilateral levels are imperative.

India faces an enormous challenge if it is to meet her energy requirement over the coming 25 years and support a growth rate of 8 percent. Energy conservation has emerged as a major policy objective in recent times but 35.5% of the population still lives without access to electricity. This challenge can only be met with a coherent approach, which develops all available energy resources coupled with energy efficiency. With increasing energy consumption associated primarily with activities in transport, mining, and manufacturing, India seriously needs to rethink its energy strategy to lead the energy revolution.

Confused Negotiations

Confusion, apart from other things also means a disorder resulting from a failure to behave predictably and this is what is going on in Durban currently.

This month two international agencies have pointed out that the world has only a few years left in which to begin taking sufficient action to combat dangerous global warming. The International Energy Agency warned that the world has only five years to start replacing fossil fuels by low carbon energy and energy efficiency. At the same time, the United Nations Environment Programme’s Bridging the Emissions Gap report shows that, even if all countries implement their emissions targets for 2020 to their maximum capacity, total emissions in that year will still exceed the level required to hold global warming to the UN’s 2C goal. Yet, the attitude of the negotiators at Durban is full of lethargy and lack of will. With the ministerial level week starting next week in Durban and the focus of the negotiations, as always, being completely on the developed and developing countries, it is high time that negotiators from all the countries sincerely work towards a positive outcome rather than wasting precious time on rewriting or reinterpreting things.

India, in the lack of a promising deal at Durban, would suffer hugely as it combines features of high vulnerability to climate change (due to persistent poverty and a high share of agriculture in GDP) with large and increasing own greenhouse gas emissions, ranking fourth after China, the US and Japan. Also, India, like the other developing countries, is a victim of historical and current emissions by industrialized countries, and as a major polluter that could, on its own, contribute substantially to future global emissions. India, however, has been a key player in the international climate negotiations since their start and has shown willingness to participate in the global negotiation process, but, at the same time, refuses to participate in the burden sharing, as it is a responsibility of the North who generated the problem in the first place. India’s dynamic Minister of Environment and Forestry, Jairam Ramesh has always presented India as a “deal maker” rather than a “deal breaker” and he even surprised some of his own negotiators at Cancun when he stated, “all countries must agree to a legally binding commitment under an appropriate legal form”.

While, voluntary pledges alone will not keep the global economy open, drive trade and investment, maintain financial stability, or protect people against food, water and energy insecurity, through the statement he broke the long-standing paradigm of Indian international climate policy. These are the kind of compromises and flexibility we need, more so from the industrialized nations, to reach a consensus on a robust climate action-plan. But this does not seem to be happening as the UK, European Union, Japan, US and other rich nations are all now united in opting to put off an agreement and the United Nations also appears to accept this. Most of the world’s leading economies now privately admit that no new global climate agreement will be reached before 2016 at the earliest, and that even if it were negotiated by then, they would stipulate it could not come into force until 2020. Everyone understands that making an agreement is not easy but aiming for a 2020 deadline is pessimistic and introduces lethargy into the process and Lord Stern rightly calls it “a collective failure”.

With the ministerial week starting in Durban next week, all eyes would be on the concerned ministers who would be reaching Durban armed with the power to take decisions. We can be rest assured that India would still maintain its image as a “deal-maker” and, like China, would not put itself under legally binding commitments. It would, however, have a major role in shaping up developed country commitments particularly by creating space for further negotiations on financing issues and on technology related property rights. It is, however, difficult to comprehend how the 2C goal that all parties have agreed to would be achieved with the US disliking any binding international obligation and the big developing countries seeking to postpone the time when they are subject to them.

Very little is expected at Durban. Let us just hope that by 2015 when the economic condition of the world is more stable and the new IPCC report has been published, a deal might just be possible. A delay beyond 2015 would lead us to catastrophe and the door would be closed forever.

Time is running out

“The door is closing, I am very worried — if we don’t change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever. ” said Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Birol’s warning comes at a crucial moment in international negotiations on climate change, as governments around the world gear up for the next fortnight of talks in Durban, South Africa, from late November. The warning, however serious it might be, has had little effect on the governments around the world as they are preparing to postpone yet again a speedy conclusion to the negotiations. Originally, the aim, for Durban, was to agree a successor to the 1997 Kyoto protocol, the only binding international agreement on emissions, after its current provisions expire in 2012. But due to the fickle economic climate, an increasing number of countries — including the U.K., Japan and Russia — now favour postponing the talks for several years. If a climate deal, including a round of post-2012 Kyoto commitments, falls off the table at Durban, most would see this as giving up on climate change and they would be right. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has also set the scene, with its well-timed warning in its new World Energy Outlook that we are way off track to avoid dangerous climate change, and that the window for effective action is closing fast.

India, in the lack of a promising deal at Durban, would suffer hugely as it combines features of high vulnerability to climate change (due to persistent poverty and a high share of agriculture in GDP) with large and increasing own greenhouse gas emissions, ranking fourth after China, the US and Japan. Also, India, like the other developing countries, is a victim of historical and current emissions by industrialized countries, and as a major polluter that could, on its own, contribute substantially to future global emissions. India, however, has been a key player in the international climate negotiations since their start and has shown willingness to participate in the global negotiation process, but, at the same time, refuses to participate in the burden sharing, as it is a responsibility of the North who generated the problem in the first place. India’s dynamic Minister of Environment and Forestry, Jairam Ramesh has always presented India as a “deal maker” rather than a “deal breaker” and he even surprised some of his own negotiators at Cancun when he stated, “all countries must agree to a legally binding commitment under an appropriate legal form”.

I totally agree with our then minister here as voluntary pledges alone will not keep the global economy open, drive trade and investment, maintain financial stability, or protect peoples against food, water and energy insecurity and through his statement, he broke the long-standing paradigm of Indian international climate policy. These are the kind of compromises and flexibility we need, more so from the industrialized nations, to reach a consensus on a robust climate action plan. But this does not seem to be happening as the UK, European Union, Japan, US and other rich nations are all now united in opting to put off an agreement and the United Nations also appears to accept this. Most of the world’s leading economies now privately admit that no new global climate agreement will be reached before 2016 at the earliest, and that even if it were negotiated by then, they would stipulate it could not come into force until 2020. Everyone understands that making an agreement is not easy but aiming for a 2020 deadline is pessimistic and introduces lethargy into the process and Lord Stern rightly calls it “a collective failure”.

This year, some limited progress has been made toward implementing the key elements of the Cancun Agreements, including the design of the Adaptation Committee and Green Climate Fund, and the system for providing information on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) but it is high time that the large emitting countries show leadership and stop blocking the negotiations. World leaders should stop gambling with the fate of the planet and postponing a climate deal year after year, because the risks are too high. And the longer we wait for real climate action, the more costly are the impacts in lives and money.

The main barrier to a deal at Durban would primarily lie around the responsibility different countries should take. Whilst the leaders will no doubt continue to squabble over what they are willing to do in the coming weeks we should not fail to remind them that the most vulnerable members of our global community are already paying the price for their slow progress. And its high time that we all realize that, “Time is running out”

NAMAs and Carbon Markets: Certain Uncertainties

Since the Kyoto Protocol came into force in 2005, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has been the key tool in the creation of carbon market in the developing countries. As on 1^st of July, 2011 a total 6416 CDM projects were included in the pipeline which are expected to generate 2.73 billion certified emissions reductions (CERs) by 2012[1]. By 2012, the issuance of carbon credits would have reached a volume of 27.3 billion USD (at 10$ per CER). Hence, CDM has made a valuable contribution towards mitigating climate change in the developing countries. Further, it has also helped in enhancing human capacity and created institutional infrastructure in the developing countries hosting CDM projects. Given these benefits CDM is considered to be one of the most innovative mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol.

In-spite of being touted as one of the most innovative mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol, the CDM comes with its share of shortcomings. Many have raised issues of environmental integrity, technology transfer, unequal geographical distribution and complex governance procedures in the context of CDM. This led to increased discussions on it being complemented with other newer mechanisms. Essentially as a means to scale-up the mitigation efforts in the developing countries. Some recent examples of new market mechanisms include the establishment of sectoral targets, where ex-post credits may be awarded for over-achieving targets. The developing countries however fear that philosophy behind sectoral targets is that the coverage of sectors would be increased with time and would finally include the entire economy into a global carbon market. Apparently a middle path in terms of the Programmes of Activities (PoAs) or Programmatic CDM (p-CDM) was devised by the CDM EB.

Arguably, the p-CDM will reduce the transaction costs and expand its reach to micro project activities as it allows for grouping of many projects into one single PoA (unlike standalone CDM projects) required to be approved only once. After the approval, unlimited and unspecified number of individual projects could be included without the need for further approvals. Also, the local, regional or national policies which could not be a part of a CDM project, could now be included under a PoA. The PoAs were introduced with the intent of lowering transaction costs and giving an enhanced ability to the LDCs or small island countries that are most vulnerable to climate change but lack the potential for a large-scale GHG mitigation project.

Inspite of tackling some of the main shortcomings of a project-based mechanism, the PoAs have not been implemented widely with only 8 registered PoAs at present (CDM Pipeline, 2011). The reason for this is partly the complexity of grouping micro projects and partly because of the complex CDM EB regulations. However, this has led to governance innovations with the emergence of new actors and mechanisms. Biermann (2010)[2] points out one such change- ‘market players now are not the private sector but the government and the Parties’. For unlike the project based mechanism such as CDM, where the private entities develop and implement a project, the government will have to take a leading role in establishing mitigation efforts in the new regime.

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) was first introduced under the Bali Action Plan (BAP) and discussed thereafter as a potential new mechanism. The Copenhagen Accord and the Cancun Agreements provided a primary framework to structuralize the work on NAMAs. The underlying driver is to be able to enhance developing countries’ contribution to global emission reduction. However, the BAP does not, at the same time, undermine the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR). The concept of NAMAs is surrounded with many ambiguities and uncertainties with quite different views amongst Parties on the scope and definition of NAMAs, means of implementation and ways to measure, report and verify (MRV) actions, combined with institutional arrangements for providing support and revealing outcomes. Evidently, such debates have become a barrier blocking the international negotiation process (McMachon & Moncel, 2009)[3].

One of the issues being discussed is- linking NAMAs and carbon market. While there is a strong inclination by some to link the NAMAs to the global carbon market (as means of providing the necessary financial support and incentives in the developing countries and offsets to the developed countries), the use of NAMAs as an offset mechanism might lead to the failure of the carbon market (as the demand and supply of the offsets available will be skewed in the absence of stronger & ambitious commitments of the developed countries- an unlikely outcome). Emission reductions achieved from NAMA should therefore be regarded as net contribution from developing countries. While, public financing should be the main source of supporting NAMAs, it, might not be able to meet the full needs and this is where carbon market could contribute. In case of any offset mechanism, however, the accounting principle should take care of ‘double counting’ of emissions reductions (for details see: Pahuja & Linner, 2010)[4].

Given that both PoAs and NAMAs have mitigation at the core and both are/will be linked with carbon markets, p-CDM could arguably be scaled-up a NAMA registry. Scaling up a PoA to a NAMA has many benefits than conceptualizing something totally afresh. A scaled-up PoA would essentially be the result of bottom-up process while a new framework has the intent of being a top-down approach. It is also easy to implement existing procedures and guidelines. Also, scaling up a PoA would mean that existing CDM capacities are used. The NAMAs, built through the scaling-up of existing PoAs, should solve the issue of the liabilities of an erroneous CPA-a challenge in the present form of PoAs.

With the world now gearing up for the COP 17 at Durban, it would be interesting to see if a conclusive and robust framework for NAMAs could be achieved. Following the sooner than later approach, the best way would be to consolidate the existing mechanisms to give them a new form else the certain uncertainty would persist with the concept of the NAMAs.

---

[1] UNEP Risoe Centre (2011), UNEP Risoe CDM/JI Pipeline Analysis. Available from: http://cdmpipeline.org/ [Accessed: August 2, 2011]

[2] Biermann, F. (2010), “Beyond the intergovernmental regime: recent trends in global carbon governance”, Environmental Sustainability, vol. 2

[3] McMachon, H. and R. Moncel (2009). Keeping Track: National Positions and Design Elements of an MRV Framework. WRI working paper. Wastington D.C.: World Resource Insititute.

[4]Dransfeld, B., Michealowa, A. & Cames, M. (2011), “Design of the post-2012 climate regime: Sectoral approaches for greenhouse gas mitigation”, Discussion Paper on behalf of the German Federal Environmental Agency

Olsen, K.H., Fenhann, J. & Hinistroza, M. (2009), “NAMAs and the Carbon Market”, UNEP Risoe, Perspective Series

Sutter, C. (2011), http://www.southpolecarbon.com/_downloads/110300_Namas_TradingCarbon_SPcs-rs.pdf. Available from: http://www.southpolecarbon.com/_downloads/110300_Namas_TradingCarbon_SPcs-rs.pdf [Accessed: August 5, 2011]

Rebound Effects

The report by the International Energy Agency stating that Greenhouse Gas emissions have increased at a record rate last year would not have come as a surprise to many people.

It is understood that reducing the energy use in urban domestic households is a key area to tackle climate change. Urbanization has become an integral part of the socio economic growth of India and the population growth is much faster in cities due to  both higher natural increases and migration. But, the Indian government do not seem to be catching up with the idea of reducing energy-consumption in urban households by bringing awareness about energy-saving through simple lifestyle changes. Most of the urban households do not have recycling facilities yet and programs like the labelling of appliances have only increased their use.

Carbon-saving household activities are seldom as simple as they seem.  A driver, who replaces his petrol car with an electric car, might drive longer distances taking advantage of the reduced fuel prices and would actually save less carbon. Worse still are the carbon-saving methods that actually increase the carbon emissions and backfire

completely – the money saved through using an energy-efficient car might be used for an additional exotic holiday in the year and the low-carbon lifestyle would have backfired completely.

The issue is that making one specific change opens up options for other changes that might very well increase the carbon emitted, thus creating, what is called the, a “Rebound Effect”. William Stanley Jevons was the first one to propose the “Rebound Effect” in 1865. He argued that increasing the efficiency of steam turbines would increase, rather than decrease, the overall consumption of coal. As the cost of energy goes down, he said, people would be more likely to use steam turbines more often. The ills of “rebound effects” especially in climate change mitigation measures have to be thought about very carefully.

In India, we are still in the formative years of making lifestyle choices in urban households and this provides us with an opportunity to steer clear of an energy-intensive lifestyle. We need to learn from the mistakes of the developed world, where the governments focused on specific behavioural changes while other actions undid the carbon saved. Dr. Angela Druckman from the centre of environmental strategy at the University of Surrey found that, in UK, only about two-thirds of the calculated carbon reductions are likely to be achieved for typical household actions. Usually the money saved on the weekly food bill by reducing food waste is money available for going out for dinner at the exotic restaurant on the weekend.

It should be understood that this kind of a behavioural change cannot be brought about without a quality and a meaningful engagement from the people in the urban areas. Nudging people to adopt specific low-carbon ways exposes us to danger of them unknowingly increasing the carbon emissions in other areas of their lives.

The working paper on “Communicating climate change to mass public audiences” states that the government should focus on “engaging with people at a deeper level by focusing on their personal values and social identities, which impact on a range of behaviours.” It is easy to convince people to make a small specific change but to adopt a low-carbon lifestyle, they would need to think for themselves.

The rebound effects have to be clearly thought about even while designing and formulating policy for tackling climate change. In his study, Terry Barker, of the Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research, states that policy makers and negotiators usually only consider the direct rebound effects of energy efficiency, largely ignoring the indirect and economy-wide effects and thus over-estimate what certain policies will achieve and are a lot less effective at reducing energy use than expected. It is extremely essential that policy makers should give more attention to rebound effects and also focus on areas apart from simple energy-efficiency.

We have to understand the importance of integrating policy measures like carbon taxes or other price based mechanisms with energy efficiency.  As my friend Arindam points out, it is also essential to generate more energy through renewable sources and combine it with energy efficiency measures to achieve maximum reduction.

Climate Change is a grave, deep-rooted problem that cannot be solved through simplistic ways and methods. It would require an integrated approach and a meaningful engagement of every individual in the society. Only through a consolidated effort would we be able to tackle this problem appropriately.