The climate change debate is at a height at the moment, driven by several factors such as the approach of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and the call for discussion on future commitment periods; the increased body of scientific and policy research such as the Stern report and the <italic>IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Fourth Assessment Report</italic>, which calls for actions to combat climate change; and the occurrence of extreme events across different parts of the world causing an increased recognition that climate change is no longer just a threat in the distant future.Article 3.1 of the Kyoto Protocol calls for reduction in GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions of Annexe I<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn002">2</xref> countries by at least 5% below the 1990 levels by the first commitment period, that is, 2008–12. Regarding the actions beyond the year 2012, the Protocol Article 3.9 mentions that the commitments for subsequent periods for Annexe I Parties shall be established in amendments to Annexe B of the Protocol, which describes the quantified emission limitation, or reduction commitments for Annexe I countries. Article 3.9 further mentions that the COP (Conference of the Parties) serving as the Meeting of the Parties (MOP) to this Protocol shall initiate the consideration of such commitments at least seven years before the end of the first commitment period.<fn id="fn002">2 The countries listed in Annexe I of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, largely the developed countries.</fn>According to the above provision, the negotiations for the Annexe I country commitments post-2012 should have been initiated by the year 2005. The eleventh session of the COP 11/MOP 1 initiated a process to consider further commitments by inviting Parties to submit to the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) Secretariat their views on further commitments by March 2006. Difference of opinion among countries regarding binding commitments under the Kyoto Protocol as well as non-binding dialogue for long-term cooperative actions was observed in COP 11. A parallel process in this regard was suggested under the convention to provide involvement of other countries, including the US and Australia. In order to proceed further with post-2012 framework, the COP/MOP suggested a dialogue on four broad areas, that is, sustainable development, adaptation, technology, and market-based opportunities. These dialogues provide a platform to the Parties to bring out their concerns, priorities, climate change actions, and viewpoints towards a post-2012 climate framework.The Annexe I countries are trying to use the amendment of Annexe B<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn003">3</xref> of the Kyoto Protocol for the further commitment periods as an opportunity to open up the debate for inclusion of major developing countries such as Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa. Inclusion of these developing countries in Annexe B is also cited by many as a motivation for the US to agree to quantitative emission reduction commitments. The growing economies of these developing countries and the increasing GHG emissions therefrom are the major reasons cited by the developed countries to demand GHG emission reduction commitment from the developing countries. This article reviews the position of developing countries in the climate change regime vis-à-vis the Annexe I countries and specifically analyses the issues and options in engaging the Asian giants like China and India in the energy and climate debate. <fn id="fn003">3 Annexe B of the Protocol lists out the emission reduction commitments agreed upon by the developed countries.</fn></sec><sec id="sec002"><title>GHG emission trends and future projections

An analysis of percentage changes in CO₂ (carbon dioxide) emissions from fuel combustion in key developing and Annexe I countries has been presented in Table 1. From the table, it is obvious that the changes in CO₂ emissions over the period 1990–2004 in developing countries are much more rapid compared to those in Annexe I countries. There are, however, obvious reasons for such rapid rise in the CO₂ emissions from the developing countries. Much of the economic development in Annexe I countries has been achieved, whereas in developing countries economic growth and development process have set in only recently. Another point to be noted here is that even though the percentage changes in developing countries may be higher, the absolute changes are still much lower, except for China, compared to the absolute emission in EU-15, Japan, or the US, as can be seen in Figure 1. Figure 1Trend in CO₂ emissions (1990–2004)

Table 1

Percentage change in CO₂ (carbon dioxide) emissions in key developing and Annexe I countries over 1990–2004

Country	Percentage change in CO₂ emissions over 1990–2004

Brazil	67.8
China	108.3
India	87.5
Mexico	27.5
South Africa	34.8
EU-15	6.5
Japan	14.8
USA	19.8
World	27.9

Source IEA (2006a)

The UNFCCC, through Article 3.1, lays great emphasis on principles of equity, common but differentiated responsibility, and respective capabilities. Based on these principles, developing countries were exempted from any emission reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. A comparison of per capita emissions of China and India with Japan and the US is shown in Figure 2. From the figure it can be seen that the per capita emissions in China and India have been much lower than those in Japan and the US. The projected per capita emissions in 2030 show that emissions in China will surpass the world average while those in India are much lower than the world average at present. This is despite the projected high rate of economic development in India. Figure 2Trend in per capita emissions Source IEA (2006b)

GHG mitigation: call for action

Two important reports have been published in 2006 and 2007. These are the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change and the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Both reports have, by highlighting the enormity of the climate change challenge, contributed significantly to an increased public debate on the issue. The reports also present a review of the costs of stabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, and present an optimistic view that through introduction of appropriate policies and measures, the adverse impacts of climate change can be addressed.

Key highlights of the Stern review

The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change brought out in 2006 examined the evidence on the economic impacts of climate change, and explored the economics of stabilizing GHG concentrations in the earth's atmosphere. According to the review, climate change threatens the basic elements of life such as access to water, food production, and health of people the world over. Further, the impacts of climate change are not evenly distributed—the poorest countries and people are predicted to be the most vulnerable.

The review focused on the feasibility and costs of stabilization of GHG concentrations in the earth's atmosphere in the range of 450–550 PPM (parts per million) CO₂e (carbon dioxide equivalent). Stabilizing at or below 550 PPM CO₂e would require global emissions to peak in the next 10–20 years, and then fall at a rate of at least 1%–3% per year. By 2050, global emissions would need to be about 25% below the current levels. These cuts will have to be made in the context of a world economy in 2050 that may be three to four times larger than today. Therefore, emissions per unit of GDP (gross domestic product) would need to be just one quarter of current levels by 2050. To stabilize at 450 PPM CO₂e, without overshooting, global emissions would need to peak in the next 10 years and then fall at more than 5% per year, reaching 70% below current levels by 2050.

Achieving these marked cuts in emissions, however, does come with a cost. The review estimated the annual costs of stabilization at 500–550 PPM CO₂e to be about 1% of GDP by 2050—a level that is significant but manageable. Resource cost estimates suggest that an upper bound for the expected annual cost of emission reductions consistent with a trajectory leading to stabilization at 550 PPM CO₂e is likely to be about 1% of GDP by 2050.

Key highlights of IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

The IPCC recently released its Fourth Assessment Report. The report highlights the facts that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level. According to the report, 11 of the last 12 years (1995–2006) were among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. This is an advance since the Third Assessment Report, which concluded that ‘most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations’. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continentalaverage temperatures, temperature extremes, and wind patterns.

The IPCC further underscores with high agreement and much evidence the fact that global GHG emissions have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004. With current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable development practices, global GHG emissions will continue to grow over the next few decades. According to the bottom-up and top-down studies reviewed as part of the IPCC process, there is substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global GHG emissions over the coming decades, that could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels. New energy infrastructure investments in developing countries, upgrades of energy infrastructure in industrialized countries, and policies that promote energy security, can, in many cases, create opportunities to achieve GHG emission reductions.

A review of the macro-economic costs of stabilization of GHG concentrations at different levels is presented in Table 2. These costs are global average for least-cost approaches from top-down models and do not include co-benefits and avoid climate change damages. Table 2

Macro-economic costs of stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations

Trajectories towards stabilization levels (PPM CO₂-e)	Median GDP reduction^a (%)	Range of GDP reduction^b (%)	Reduction of average annual GDP growth rates^c (percentage points)

590–710	0.2	−0.6–1.2	< 0.06
535–5900	0.6	0.2–2.5	> 0.1
445–535^d	Not available	< 3	< 0.12

GDP - gross domestic product; PPM - parts per million;
CO₂e - carbon dioxide equivalent
Source IPCC (2007)
Notes
^a These are global GDP-based market exchange rates.
^b The median and the 10th and 90th percentile range of the analysed data are given.
^c The calculation of the reduction of the annual growth rate is based on the average reduction during the period till 2030 that would result in the indicated GDP decrease in 2030.
^d The number of studies that report GDP results is relatively small and they generally use low baselines.

The Asian giants: an overview

While the demand for engaging major developing countries in the energy and climate debate is on the rise, it may be worthwhile to examine the case of China and India, the Asian giants under consideration in this paper—their socio-economic status, developmental challenges, and placement in the energy and climate debate.

Socio-economic overview of China and India

China and India are the world's two most populous countries with a population of about 2.4 billion in 2005. Despite the declining rate of population growth experienced by these countries in the recent past, their contribution to the world population has remained more or less constant at about 37% during the period 1990–2005 (ADB 2006).

Both these countries have recorded impressive growth rates in the recent past, with their GDP growth rates averaging at about 8% and 10% for India and China, respectively, for the period 2003–05 (Table 3). The upward trends in the economic growth rate exhibited by these two countries are the result of an increased investment rate, expansion of domestic demand, upsurge in the exports of goods and services, etc. While in India, the contribution of the services sector to the aggregate GDP is the highest, in China the industrial sector continues to be predominant contributor to total GDP. However, both these economies are witnessing similar structural changes in the form of increased share of GDP contributed by the services sector in the aggregate GDP. Table 3

Trend of GDP growth rate for India and China

Year	India	China

2000	4.4%	8.0%
2001	5.8%	7.5%
2002	3.8%	8.3%
2003	8.5%	9.5%
2004	7.5%	9.5%
2005	8.4%	9.9%

Source ADB (2006)

The urban areas of both these countries have witnessed higher economic growth relative to the rural areas, leading to rural–urban disparities. In India, the indicators of rural–urban disparities such as per-capita consumption expenditure, employment indicators, incidence of poverty, access to electricity, shelter and quality of housing, sanitation, access to safe drinking water, and road connectivity reiterate, the fact that the gap between rural and urban areas is widening (GoI 2002). This is one of the primary reasons for high levels of urbanization in India with about 28% of the population residing in urban areas in 2005 (ADB 2006).

Similarly, in China, the income gap between the rural and urban residents has kept growing, and China has become one of the countries with the largest urban–rural gap in the world (CCAP 2006). Rural–urban labour migration in China nowadays is accelerating at a much faster pace, thereby becoming one of the most important social factors. In China, the share of urban population to the total has increased from 36% in 2000 to 43% year 2005.

Energy as an imperative for development

Energy is key to the growth and development of a country. This is critically important for countries that are witnessing a rise in their economic development. Poverty reduction and provision of basic amenities to citizens are the key challenges facing China and India, and only economic development provides a solution to these challenges. This would mean increased energy demand from these countries. Energy is also required to meet the targets set up by these countries under the MDGs (Millennium Development Goals) adopted at the UN Millennium Summit held in Johannesburg in September 2000 for improving the condition of the world's poorest by 2015.

Similarly, the high growth rates of GDP have resulted in increased output of goods and services and have a direct bearing on energy consumption. Figures 3 and 4 reflect the linkage between provision of electricity, HDI (Human Development Index), and economic growth. Figure 3Commercial energy consumption and gross domestic product (2003)

Figure 4Developing Asia's human development index and electricity use (1995 and 2002)

The challenge confronting these economies is to meet the development aspirations of their people by way of providing adequate and equitable access to basic amenities and services. Over the years, both China and India have made substantial progress in social welfare with the HDI increasing from 0.515 and 0.628 for India and China, respectively, in 1990 to 0.611 and 0.768 in 2004 (UNDP 2006).

Trends in energy and GHG emissions in China and India

The historical trends reveal that India's TPES (total primary energy supply) has increased from 362 MTOE (million tonnes of oil equivalent) in 1990 to 573 MTOE in 2004 with an average annual growth rate of 3.6% a year during the period 1990–2004. On the other hand, during the same period, the TPES in China has grown from 867 MTOE in 1990 to 1609 MTOE in 2004, with an average annual growth rate of 4.5% (IEA 2006a). As China and India are on a high economic growth, their energy needs are expected to rise in significant proportions in the future. In the global context, India and China contribute about 5% and 14%, respectively, of the world's TPES. However, the percapita TPES is of the order of 0.53 TOE/capita/annum and 1.24 TOE/capita/annum, respectively, in the year 2004—that is below the world average of 1.77 TOE/capita/annum for the same year (IEA 2006a). A noticeable feature of the energy sector in India and China is the dominance of coal in the TPES, contributing more than half of their TPES. It is expected that coal will remain the highest contributor to energy supply.

The Initial National Communication of People's Republic of China reported that China's GHG emissions in 1994 were 3650 MTCO₂e (million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent), with CO₂ accounting for 73% of the total GHG emissions (NDRC 2004). Similarly, according to India's Initial National Communication, GHG emissions were 1228.54 MTCO₂e in 1994, with CO₂ accounting for 65% of the total GHG emissions (MoEF 2004). In both these countries, fuel combustion is the major source of CO₂ emissions.

It is claimed that India and China are now among the top five CO₂ emitters of the world, accounting for 22% of the world-energy-related CO₂ emissions (IEA 2006a).⁴ During the period 1990–2004, CO₂ emissions from fuel combustion from India and China have increased by 87% and 108%, respectively (Table 1). The good signal, however, is that CO₂ emission intensity of both the countries is exhibiting a declining trend and there is a need to continue on this trend.

⁴The estimates of carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion presented in IEA (International Energy Agency) publications are calculated using the IEA energy data and default methods and emission factor from IPCC Guidelines. Emission factor for a same fuel may vary with geographical locations.

GHG mitigation efforts of China and India

Keeping in view the growing economies and rising emissions from China and India, it is imperative that these countries start responding proactively to the climate change challenge. At the same time, we cannot ignore the particular situation of the two countries characterized by the developmental challenges faced by them. Any strategy or measure for addressing climate change that stalls the development in these countries will have far-reaching impacts in making the future generations even more vulnerable to climate change. The best way to deal with this dilemma is then to integrate climate change concerns into current development policies and programmes.

In fact, a number of programmes are already going on in China and India that also contribute to GHG emission reduction. In case of China, such measures include restructuring the economy; promoting technology advancement and improving energy efficiency; optimizing energy mix by developing low-carbon options and renewable energy; launching nationwide tree planting and afforestation campaign; and enhancing ecological restoration. In addition, China has also worked on to strengthening laws and regulations, and policies and measures relevant to addressing climate change; improving institutions and mechanisms; and attaching importance to climate change research, capacity building, education, training, and public awareness on climate change.

In India, significant developments have taken place in the promotion of renewable energy, improving energy efficiency, power sector reforms, energy and infrastructure development, cleaner and lesser carbon-intensive fuel for transport, including biofuels and environmental quality improvement, etc. The developments on the policy and regulatory front include Energy Conservation Act, 2001, the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, the National Environment Policy of India, 2006, which identifies climate change as a severe threat and the Integrated Energy Policy, 2006, which provides a broad overarching framework for guiding the policies governing the production and use of different forms of energy from various sources.

Realizing the enormity of the climate change challenge and with a view to accelerate actions for addressing climate change, China has come out with a National Climate Change Programme this year. According to this programme, China will strive to control its GHG emissions, enhance its capacity to adapt to climate change, and promote the harmonious development between economy, population, resources, and the environment. In order to achieve the above objectives, China will be guided by the following (NDRC 2007).

Giving full effect to the scientific approach of development

Promoting the construction of socialist harmonious society

Advancing the fundamental national policy of resources conservation and environmental protection

Controlling GHG emission and enhancing sustainable development capacity

Securing economic development

Conserving energy, optimizing energy structure, and strengthening ecological preservation and construction

Relying on the advancement of science and technology

Enhancing the capacity to address climate change

For giving special attention to the climate change challenge in India, the Union Budget 2007/08 of the Government of India announced the appointment of an expert committee to study the impacts of climate change on India, and identify measures to be taken to address these impacts. As a follow up, an expert committee on the impacts of climate change has been set up under the chairmanship of the Principal Scientific Advisor to the Government of India. To further gear up climate change response activities in India, the Government of India has also announced the constitution of a high-level advisory group on climate change on 5 June 2007, also known as Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change or the National Council on Climate Change. The Council will coordinate national action plans for assessment, adaptation, and mitigation of climate change. It will advise the government on proactive measures that can be taken by India to deal with the challenge of climate change. It will also facilitate inter-ministerial coordination and guide policy in relevant areas (The Hindu 2007).

The first meeting of the Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change took place in July 2007 in which the Prime Minister directed the Planning Commission of India to incorporate clean development strategies into the sectoral plans and proposals for the Eleventh Five-year Plan and make a strategy to deal with climate change as an intrinsic part of the Eleventh Plan. The meeting decided that a national strategy paper on climate change will be prepared before the end of the year. It would protect India's developmental goals and interests while at the same time addressing concerns, both at home and abroad, with respect to global warming and sustainable development (PIB 2007).

Conclusion

The causes and consequences of climate change are global, and therefore, require an international collective action in driving an effective, efficient, and equitable response to address the adverse impacts. Climate change poses a major challenge to scientists and policy-makers in exploring deeper international cooperation in many areas—technology research, development and deployment, and promoting adaptation to climate change, particularly for developing countries. Cooperation could have several dimensions: North–South and South–South. In addition, several indigenous options and measures would need support for large-scale adoption and replication.

China and India are quite significant players in the energy and climate debate in view of their growing economies and the associated emissions therefrom. It becomes important that climate change concerns are integrated into their developmental planning so that GHG emission intensity in these countries can be reduced. Making development more sustainable by adopting low-carbon development paths can make a major contribution to climate change mitigation, but implementation may require additional resources to overcome different barriers and here the support of Annexe I countries could work as a catalyst. There is a growing understanding of the possibilities to choose and implement mitigation options in several sectors to realize synergies between sustainable development and climate change and probably this is the most plausible way in which developing countries, even large ones like China and India, can contribute in addressing climate change.

Engaging the Asian giants in the energy and climate debate1

Engaging the Asian giants in the energy and climate debate¹