Climate crisis: intra-national inequalities are also unjust
"But the West's carbon footprint is much higher.."
If you've ever engaged in a conversation about the climate crisis, chances are, this came up. Along with "But we need to develop" (about that in some other post), I find the allusion to the West's carbon emissions the most common red herring that hinders a constructive domestic climate conversation. These phrases are often thrown at me in an attempt to explain why we don't need, or can't afford, more climate action in India. In my (inadequate) personal experience, this phrase is most conveniently thrown by those who seem to be less vulnerable to the climate crisis than the average Indian, but who also emit more than the average Indian. The irony is palpable.
Historical climate responsibility and per capita carbon emissions are incontrovertible metrics. By both accounts, India has contributed very little to causing the climate crisis. Add to that the fact that India has the highest social cost of carbon in the world 一 i.e. the fact that for every tonne of CO2 emitted, most (but not all) countries stand to lose something, but India stands to lose the most 一 and you have a striking example of inequality and injustice. And finally, there is no doubt that most wealthy countries are unethically reneging on their promises of climate finance. In this backdrop, "too much" climate action (for that's how it's usually dismissed) in a developing nation like India can seem both unwarranted and futile.
For example, the 'average Indian' emitted about 1.8 tonnes of CO2 in the year 2020. Meanwhile, the 'average Saudi Arabian', 'average Australian' and 'average North American' (citizens of USA and Canada) emitted about 18, 15.4 and 14.2 tonnes of CO2 in the same year. Why should an Indian even try to minimize their carbon footprint? What even is the point? And where is the justice?1
As a regular citizen not engaged in any diplomatic discussions or with any international influence, I theoretically know that I have two choices 一 to dwell endlessly on American, European or Australian policies that I cannot change, or to shift focus to what can be achieved within my own country. But there is a a difference between knowing something and putting it in practice. The concept of intra-national inequalities has encouraged me to close that gap.
There is no 'average Indian'
"The 'average Indian' emitted about 1.8 tonne of CO2 in the year 2020."
But surely we all know, there is no 'average Indian'.
In 2020, Oxfam released a report which stated that the richest 1% on the planet emit more than double of what the poorest half of humanity emits. This kind of international inequality is easily understood and recognized. However, somewhat mirroring these findings, a study by the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature also elucidated that while rich Indian households typically emit about 1.32 tonne per year, poor Indian households emit about 0.19 tonne only. It is easy to extrapolate that 'rich' and 'poor' are also broad inhomogenous categories, and that there must exist some households with very-high carbon emissions and some others with very-high climate-vulnerability.
There are city-wise metrics available too. For example, unsurprisingly, Mumbai, Delhi, Bengaluru, Chennai and Kolkata have above-average carbon footprints. Gurugram reports a carbon footprint 10 times that of Boudh (Odisha). There are regional patterns too 一 with western India showing a higher footprint than eastern India. And finally, there are metrics available based on religion 一 Sikh and Buddhist households showed higher footprints than Christian, Hindu and Muslim ones. Perhaps future research will elaborate on trends for different castes, creeds, genders, sexualities etc. And perhaps we could then also have vigorous intra-national debates on how much emphasis to place on 'per capita'. For example, according to a study by Moran et al., Delhi puts in as much carbon into the atmosphere as Bengaluru, Chennai and Hyderabad combined. But then, if we choose to focus on per capita emissions, it ranks much lower than the leading cities of Chandigarh and Vadodara.
Which category do I fall in? And does the average metric for that category matter? Along the same line, do national, regional or city-wise per capita metrics matter, especially when there exists such stark economic inequality in the country? And finally, as an educated, privileged citizen of this country, is it just that I hide behind an aggregated per capita metric, knowing fully that it is the backwardness of some of my own 'brothers and sisters' that allows me to do so? Is it just that I dwell fruitlessly on the apathy of the 'others' (however they be defined), avoiding the difficult questions of what my own responsibilities are?
Somewhere to start
What typically sets apart the rich from the poor is the source of the carbon emissions. Rich households tend to emit disproportionately for private transport and durable goods. Contrast this with the fact that the chunk of emissions from poor households comes from consumption of soap, detergents and clothing, and the case for intra-national injustice is clear. Regarding food, rich Indians spend much more on animal products, alcohol, other beverages, restaurant food2 and fruits.
For me, the aviation footprint takes the cake. According to the International Civil Aviation Organization's carbon emissions calculator, a round trip (Economy, 1 passenger) between New Delhi and Mumbai emits about 0.2 tonne of CO2. The estimate for a round trip between New Delhi-Bengaluru/Chennai and Mumbai-Kolkata is close to 0.3 tonne of CO2 per passenger. A London-Mumbai flight emits ~0.6 tonne per passenger. Last year, when I flew from Mumbai to Toronto, I was responsible for the emission of at least 1.1 tonnes of CO2. For context, the per capita budget to limit warming to 1.5 ℃ is 1.1 tonne per annum. I used up my yearly budget in less than 24 hours. The same probably holds true for anyone who flies domestically every other month.
So what lies ahead? Perhaps the next step is to ask ourselves if we are really represented by the national per capita metric. And if we exceed our 1.5 ℃-compatible carbon budgets, then do we feel as responsible for the suffering of our own country-people as we would like the West to. And finally, if we're willing to do something about our intra-national inequalities without pretending they first require international equality or finance. At this point of the crisis, every bit would certainly help.
----------
1 A similar argument has also been
used to discourage climate action in the West. "Developing countries are
swiftly industrializing with the use of unclean energy. Why should the
developed countries minimize their carbon footprint, only for their
efforts to be offset by the developing countries? Why should "we" give up our standard of living and destroy our economy without achieving any real climate goals?"
2 I'm reminded of a slew of social media posts that discuss people's expenditure on food apps. Has anyone else seen this too?
----------
If you enjoy such posts, you may subscribe here.
----------
Recommended reading:
(1) Who Has The Most Historical Responsibility for Climate Change? - by Nadja Popovich and Brad Plumer for NY Times
(2) Who is really to blame for climate change? - by Jocelyn Timperley for BBC
(3) The broken $100-billion promise of climate finance 一 and how to fix it - by Jocelyn Timperley for Nature
Recommended viewing, at the risk of being called the first scientist to cite a comedian..^^: The Great Indian Middle Class - by Punit Pania
Comments
Post a Comment