The factual position is: the government sector is the biggest polluter in India. Therefore, any commitment by India on emission intensity cut at the Copenhagen meet will almost solely fall on the government sector for compliance. And, does anyone have any idea about how large may be the physical cost to the country of such an emission cut offer, 20-25 per cent by 2020 as indicated by Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh? Also, can India bear such a huge financial burden within such a short period? What happens to its future economic growth projections and poverty alleviation programmes? Ramesh should have thrown some light on these questions in Parliament.

Nearly 70 per cent of India's most polluting industries such as power, thermal, hydel and nuclear put together, coal and iron ore mining, steel, petroleum refining and fertilizer belong to the government sector. The cost of technology changes in these industries to comply with the Environment Ministry's formulae in the next 10 years may run into a few lakh crores of rupees. Even if the government manages to borrow a substantial part of the necessary technology refurbishment fund from the developed world, its implementation is bound to badly affect the economic growth process and push India into a debt-trap again.

Apart from the industry, the government is also responsible for running civic bodies such as metropolitan corporations and municipalities, the age-old practice of road building using molten coal tar, sanitation and sewage management of which contribute hugely to carbon accentuation, air and water pollution. Is the government ready, financially and administratively, to take on the challenges facing civic bodies to change their management practices in 10 years to comply with the proposed emission standards?

On the contrary, the corporate sector — barring a few black sheep manufacturing cement, bricks, plastics, paints, dyes and chemicals or operating low technology furnaces and smelters — is as smart and conscious about the emission management as its counterparts in the developed world. Thanks to the global competition and outsourcing of high-value manufactured products and services from India, the corporate sector is technology savvy. It is not inclined to operate in conflict with the global practices of emission control.

This explains why the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), one of the country's three top industry associations, supports the government's latest gesture offering a unilateral emission cut ahead of the Copenhagen summit on climate change though another industry body, FICCI, holds a somewhat contrary view. The corporate sector, especially the large enterprises and those backed by foreign technology and capital, has nothing much to lose as a result of the government's offer. The import of the government offer will, however, hit financially weak small and medium-sized units which have been slow or sometimes deliberately negligent about adopting advanced technologies.

Therefore, the government's latest decision offering unilateral cut in emission intensity, even before the negotiations on the subject have begun, is extremely surprising. Not only that. It is a major deviation from the government's earlier stated position on the subject at issue, but also the cost of implementation of such a decision will be too enormous to be borne by the country in its present state of development. The earlier official position was that India's per capita carbon footprint was lower than that of many developed countries, including the United States. And, the US and other developed countries need to do more on emission cut while India would continue to take measures to contract its carbon emission in its own interest.

Until last month, India was not prepared for making any firm commitment on the levels of emissions and fixing a time frame for their reduction. Only recently, the issue was discussed and agreed upon at an India-China joint forum. India's latest stance is just the reverse. It has dumped the long-argued per capita or per head emission calculation theory to advance the cause of the G-8 based on emission intensity. The latter is calculated in terms of per capita GDP under the purchasing power parity (PPP) method instead of India's long-standing per head impact concept.

Therefore, India's latest position is inexplicable except that it is believed to have been taken to please the Obama administration. The bitter truth is India's lately changed position on carbon emission is not even sustainable without severely compromising on the country's economic growth. It is also undesirable as such a move is not in the interest of the poor people of the country. The heavy financial pressure on economy is bound to have an adverse impact on prices of all goods and services, including agriculture.

India does not need to follow China even if the latter agrees to a strategic emission cut. China's rate and pace of economic development are much higher than India's. It has the world's largest dollar reserve outside the US. China may also deliberately pretend to succumb to the US pressure in order to push its exports and also to put its emerging Asian rival, India, under financial stress. Both India and China have been under pressure from the US administration to drastically cut their respective emission rates. The proposed US carbon-tax on imports from developing countries and countervailing carbon duty by France are being used as a pressure tactic. Ironically, the United States of America, the world's richest and most polluting country, has offered to cut its emission rate by only three per cent by 2020. Japan, the world's second largest economy, will cut its emission rate by seven per cent.

Under the circumstances, it would be suicidal for India's government sector, the prime mover and developer of the country's economy and civic infrastructure, to undertake a 20-25 per cent voluntary emission intensity cut by 2020 just to please the US and some of the G-8 members. Both the Union and the state governments will be under severe financial pressure to comply with the new emission norms in their public enterprises such as electricity generating corporations, petroleum refineries, fertilizer and chemical units, steel mills and mines. The economic growth will be severely stunted as the existing units will be under pressure to borrow large funds and divert them for upgrading their existing technologies instead of making investment in fresh capacity expansion.

Although there is no denying the fact that India needs to take firm steps to control carbon emission to desirable levels and prevent further contamination of its water and atmosphere, it has to tread cautiously on making any firm commitment before the global community without taking into consideration its ability to keep its words. Carbon emission cannot be controlled merely by an act of Parliament. The people at all levels need to be educated about the danger of such emissions on the ecology and their own health. It has to be something on the lines of the anti-tobacco campaign, which has drastically cut cigarette production and consumption across the world, including India.

The Government must introduce attractive incentive packages to industry and civic bodies to encourage reduction in carbon emission and environment protection. The present carbon credit scheme needs to be overhauled and made more attractive and penetrative. Polluting industries and civic bodies may be charged a levy to promote a central pollution control fund carrying a matching contribution from the government, which will, in turn, reinvest the proceeds in those industries and local-self organisations to enable them to upgrade technologies and use better waste management practices. To change the mindset of the people, the government needs to change its own mindset to avoid taking unilateral decisions on burning national issues and make global commitments to redress such matters that affect the life and future of every citizen of the country. (IPA Service)