Does India have the right to burn fossil fuels?

There has been a lot of debate on India’s dependence on coal in the backdrop of the meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP26). While coal lobbyists may have a clear interest in continuing that reliance, it is surprising when even progressive circles provide theories to justify it. Despite adopting a position similar to that of the Environment Minister on the eve of COP26, the Government of India has for the first time committed to achieving a net zero target by 2070. It remains to be seen whether the government will actually implement this or not. Talk because experience on this matter (or other issues) doesn’t necessarily inspire that confidence.

The crux of the theoretical argument is that India needs development and development needs energy. However, since India has neither historically emitted nor currently emits carbon anywhere near the global north, or in per capita terms, dependence on coal at least in the near future There’s no reason to commit to a decline. If anything, it is argued, it should ask for a higher and fairer share in the global carbon budget. There is no doubt that this carbon budget framework is an excellent tool for understanding global injustice, but from there to our ‘right to burn’ is a huge leap forward. It is like arguing that since India was a colony, it also has the right to do so and it is injustice to prevent the country from doing so.

For growth, do countries in the global south need to increase their share of the global carbon budget? Thankfully the answer is ‘no’ and it does not come at the cost of development, even in the limited sense as development is generally defined.

question of development

One, there is no doubt that economic development requires energy but that is not converted into energy by burning coal. If other clean forms of energy are available, why persist on using coal? Generally the arguments in favor of coal are due to its cost, reliability and domestic availability. Recent data shows that the level cost of electricity from renewable energy sources such as solar (photovoltaic), hydro and onshore wind has been declining rapidly over the past decade and is already lower than fossil fuel-based electricity generation. On reliability, marginal renewable energy technologies have managed to address the question of variability of such sources to a great extent and with technological advancements, this is changing for the better. As far as easy domestic availability of coal is concerned, it is a myth. According to the Ministry of Coal, India’s net coal imports increased from ₹782.6 billion in 2011-12 to ₹1,155.0 billion in 2020-21. India is one of the largest importers of coal in the world, while it has no shortage of solar energy.

Second, why should the global South copy the North in the development model it seeks to follow? During the debate of post-colonial development in the Third World, there were two important issues under discussion – the control of technology and the choice of techniques to address the issue of surplus labour. India in its efforts for import-substitution industrialization did not fully address the two issues which worsened during the post-reform period. But it can address both today. The abundance of renewable natural resources in a tropical climate can give India a head start in this competitive world of technology. South-South cooperation can help India avoid the usual pattern of trade between the North and the South, where the former controls technology and the latter provides only inputs. And the higher employment trajectory that the green path emphasizes the fossil fuel sector could help address the issue of surplus labor, albeit partially. Such a route could provide decentralized access to clean energy to the poor and marginalized, including remote areas of India. Therefore, it simultaneously addresses the issues of employment, technology, energy poverty and self-sufficiency.

types of injustice

Third, the framework for addressing global injustice in the context of carbon budgets is in more ways than one way limited in its scope. Such injustice is not at the level of nation-states alone; There is such injustice within nations, between rich and poor, and between humans and non-human species. A progressive position on justice would take these injustices into account, rather than focusing narrowly on the structure of nation-states. Furthermore, it is a double whammy of injustice to the global South when it comes to climate change. Not only is it primarily responsible, but the global South, especially its poor, will tolerate the effects of climate change unreasonably because of its tropical climate and high population densities along coastlines. So, arguing for more coal is like shooting yourself in the foot. It is true that mitigation from the south alone will not make the necessary difference to prevent this disaster, but burning more coal will not necessarily solve the problem either.

But none of this answers how the mistakes of the past will be corrected, the basic premise we started with. We have argued in the same paper that one way to do this is to pay for the energy transition from the global north to the south. Following a free, green path to development could create the conditions for such negotiations and give the South a moral high ground to force the North to come to the table, as South Africa did in Glasgow. did. The current lack of action against climate change in both the North and the South is maintained by dividing the working classes of these two regions – the North justifies operating coal mines as the South continues to have more emissions and the South with a higher share of carbon. negotiating for. Budget based on North’s past emissions. This is deadlock. The need of the hour is a global progressive agenda that pits the working class of the North not against the South but the working people of the world to oppose the global ruling elite in an aggressive and dangerous model of competitive emissions. If anyone is pessimistic about this path of correcting the mistakes of the past, it is at least better than the status quo.

Rohit Azad teaches Economics at JNU, New Delhi, and is a Research Fellow at the Sauvik Chakraborty Political Economy Research Institute, Amherst, US.