Nikki Haley is wrong -- but not for the reasons you think

Earlier this week, Nikki Haley posted an incorrect tweet which led to a lot of outrage among Indians. Unfortunately, this outrage also reveals several myths the Indian climate conversation is rife with. In this post, I use the example of a specific video by the media outlet Firstpost to clarify some misconceptions, and to remind people of some critical climate truths that seem to be getting sidelined by our per capita pride. I request the reader to first watch the video, it is only 5 minutes long.

===

00:50

"..pollution has a time lag. What you emit today, affects us years later. Maybe 10 or 20 years down the line. This is why experts talk about historical pollution."

This is factually incorrect. Pollution -- and more specifically, carbon emissions -- have no such time lag. They affect us immediately. The actual reason why experts talk about historical pollution is the long residence time of carbon dioxide. Once emitted, carbon dioxide can stay in the atmosphere for a very long time (in the order of centuries). This means that the present concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not depend only on recent emissions, but also on past emissions. This further means that reducing global emissions today will not lead to an immediate reduction carbon dioxide concentrations. It is a double mistake in terms of preparedness to

(i) presume an incorrect lag in the effect of emissions and
(ii) neglect the lag that we will face after we reduce them.

===

"Nikki Haley had the audacity to blame India."

But Nikki Haley did not blame India. She said nothing about historical emissions (more on this down below).

It is factually correct to say that India and China are "some of the biggest polluters".  When looking at the amount of pollution, the population of the polluting nation is irrelevant. The climate system only responds to carbon dioxide concentrations, it does not care about population sizes. Thus, while it may be tempting to use the per capita metric to find ourselves further down the list, it is the absolute emissions that matter. And we are among the top three emitters in the world today, along with US and China.

Considering no one has built a time machine yet, historical emissions cannot be changed today. Charting a lower carbon path today and tomorrow essentially requires focusing on the emitters of today and tomorrow. There is no escaping this, and while Nikki Haley has no authority to confront India, we as Indians must confront our own carbon emissions for our own benefit.

===

2:22

"Even China is better than the US."

Historical/cumulative emissions are frequently used to apportion blame. It is worth pointing out that only global historical/cumulative emissions matter to the climate system. The climate system is oblivious and indifferent to man-made national boundaries. This is because carbon dioxide is a well-mixed gas. Irrespective of where it is emitted or by whom it is emitted, it affects us all. Vulnerability has absolutely nothing to do with culpability.

The system of apportioning blame arises from using the socio-economic metric of national emissions. But this is most emphatically not a climate metric. In the context of the climate crisis, socio-economic metrics are useful for understanding how to solve the crisis. However, if they are being used to deflect from the actual solving of the crisis, or the importance of actually solving the crisis, they are being misused.

Let me put it in plainer terms: Carbon dioxide is a well-mixed gas. All carbon emissions have the same effect of trapping heat in the atmosphere. Its emissions will affect India, irrespective of whether they come from US, Africa or from within India itself. Carbon emissions will affect India even if they come from natural sources or anthropogenic sources. Carbon emissions will hurt India even if India is itself last on the emissions list. The climate crisis will march on irrespective of whether humans figure out how to effect climate justice. This should fill us with concern, but perhaps we're busier feeling morally superior due to our low per capita footprint (another socio-economic metric which means nothing to the climate system) or handing out "goodness" tags based on emissions.

===

2:29

"Most experts also talk about exported emissions. What does that mean? You keep hearing US officials talk about reducing pollution. They do that by exporting manufacturing. Instead of building factories in the US, they build it elsewhere like in China, Vietnam, even India."

(At this point, I'm wondering exactly which experts were consulted before making this video.)

This is a point I frequently encounter and it is a valid concern. However, please be assured that actual experts can account for this. In the case of the US, both production-based / territorial emissions and consumption-based emissions have been falling since 2005. The problem is they are not falling fast enough.

 

===

"Put two and two together, and what do you get? More pollution by the US."

I agree, one hundred percent.

===

3:28

"Unfortunately, Nikki Haley missed this memo".

Nikki Haley missed a lot of memos. She intends to roll back green subsidies and regulations on fossil fuel production. At this point, it is quite clear that doing so will hurt the US itself. According to one study, the US is the second highest economic "loser" to carbon emissions in the whole world. This is reflected through the social cost of carbon, which estimates the economic costs faced due to carbon emissions. If Nikki Haley cannot understand what is the right thing to do for her own country, I am not holding my breath for her to get her stand correct on India.

Unfortunately, the flip side to this metric is, India is the only country which ranks ahead of the US.

===

Nikki Haley's tweet was ridiculous, not because she called India a polluter. That bit is true, and I don't care to apologise for it. Her tweet was ridiculous because according to the current international climate treaty in force (the Paris Accord), countries determine their own contributions (called Nationally Determined Contributions or NDCs). The US has no legal leg to stand upon even if decided to 'confront' India.

Again, the flip side to this fact is, India also does not have any legal leg to stand upon if we wanted to 'confront' the US for its emissions. Ranting on domestic media, or even on international platforms, will have only a very limited effect. The more pragmatic approach is to expect that other countries will first put on their own mask. (Didn't we just see Exhibit A during the pandemic?) The safer approach then is to not count on the awakening of anyone else's conscience but to start focusing on what we can achieve independently. It is a long road ahead, and it is better to start early. As they say: Start where you are, use what you have, do what you can.

===

If you like such posts, you can subscribe here.