The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznań ended on Saturday, 13 December. The Conference was a milestone on the road to success for the processes which were launched under the Bali Road Map. As usual India pushed for ‘equitable’ global sharing of carbon space while dealing with negotiations on climate change mitigation. The only discernable framework or logic for India’s stance vis-a-vis the rest of the world is the normative standard that national emissions entitlements should be determined by the principle of “per capita emission entitlements” (PPCEE). Note that this implies quantitative rationing of emissions in some form. The nation might be better served by a somewhat more critical examination of India’s naïve stance. PPCEE is problematic because its normative and positive moorings are unclear or do not exist. Normative principles have force only if they are applicable with equal force in all analogous situations. Otherwise they are merely opportunistic and ad hoc. Is PPCEE applicable as a principle to the allocation of all resources? If not, why? Surely, historical patterns of consumption of all resources have been very uneven across the world. If we truly believe in the rightness of PPCEE, should we not push for analogous entitlements to all the earth’s resources and not merely the atmosphere? If we are not doing so because of the pragmatic belief that no one will accept it as an allocation principle for other resources, then why do we believe that it will be acceptable in the case of atmospheric rights? No responsible government will subordinate the interests of its people to an abstract principle such as PPCEE. For a developed nation, accepting PPCEE will force it to turn back the lifestyle clock by a couple of centuries. Unfortunately for normative principles, history and self-interest are more powerful motivations in negotiations. So, what does our negotiating stand amount to? Given the clear evidence that PPCEE cannot be acceptable to the developed nations, India’s stand is tantamount to brinkmanship.

In political economic terms, it is clear that PPCEE is a veil that the privileged class of Indians wants to hide behind. The privileged Indians have carbon footprints closer to those of people in the developed world. The national level entitlement that our government wishes to garner on the basis of our large population is really a licence for the privileged people to continue to consume irresponsibly under the cover provided by our vast number of poor. PPCEE would have moral force only if the Indians with large carbon footprints also had to cut emissions or pay for emissions in line with the standards sought to be imposed on the developed world.

The carbon problem involves sovereign nations. It is unlikely to be amenable to solution by the adoption of PPCEE. We have to recognize that it is a game, i.e., a strategic situation, in which various players maneuver for advantage in terms of their self-interest. We need to see the world in strategic terms and negotiate with it, rather than hector it on the basis of a dubious normative principle.

Last 5 posts by payal

• Licence Raj Raja goes! - November 16th, 2010
• Nobel Prize and New Institutional Economics - October 16th, 2009
• Electricity tariff regulations: some simple facts - September 16th, 2009
• Research feeding into policy - August 27th, 2009
• Land Acquisition, some ruminations - August 16th, 2009

Tags: bargaining, climate change, negotiations

This entry was posted on Saturday, December 13th, 2008 at 6:32 pm and is filed under Global Economy, Policy, Regulation and Competition. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.