Ten years of climate inaction

The Paris Climate Agreement of 2015 legitimised the evisceration of the UN climate framework — and history may repeat itself at COP 30 in Belem

- SHYAM SARAN

Thirty-three years ago, in 1992, I was part of the Indian delegation participating in the final round of negotiations in Rio de Janeiro on what became the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This was the high point of a multilateral effort to deal with the looming threat of global climate change. For developing countries, there were certain key provisions.

One was the recognition of the principle of historical responsibility of developed and industrialised countries for the large stock of greenhouse gas emissions in the Earth's atmosphere. This was based on the scientific understanding that climate change has been caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere since the dawn of the fossil fuelbased industrial age in the 19th century.

Carbon emissions stayed in the atmosphere for over a hundred years, declining only gradually over the years. Current emissions, including from developing countries, add to the stock but only incrementally. This stock-versus-flow argument is at the heart of the climate debate.

Two, the UNFCCC enshrined the key principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility and Respective Capabilities, the well-known CBDR principle.

This meant that while all countries have a responsibility to deal with climate change, in view of historical responsibility and the availability of financial and technological resources among developed countries, it is the latter who must take the lead.

The UNFCCC also recognised that climate action by developing countries beyond what they could accomplish within the limitation of their own resources, must be supported by both finance and technology from developed countries. Such finance was to come primarily from public revenues, and technology was to be transferred on a government-to-government basis. Both could be supplemented by private and philanthropic contributions, but these could not substitute for state-level action.