To help avoid the worst of climate consequences, it must, but the developed world should concede more too, Chandra Bhushan, deputy director general of the Centre for Science and Environment in India, says....
India - a boon of growth and potential, even as it faces numerous growing pains as it develops. Out of India is a critic of The Paris Agreement, Chandra Bhushan, deputy director general of the Centre for Science and Environment in India, who argues that developed countries are not affording India the room (carbon space) it needs to grow and provide opportunities for the best quality of life possible. It's like finally being able to drive, gas prices are $3.15 and instead of freedom, it becomes a burden. India has also been handed the keys to steer their own future, but there are some that say there's only so far they can go without developed countries conceding more carbon.
The learning curve established by developing countries may be too steep to be repeated. Mukund Rajan, a member of the Group Executive Council at Tata Sons, was included in an NPR story that they are looking for new way to innovate. "That way has to be through finding technological solutions that we can innovate and that we can share to ensure that we don't go through the same learning curve that the developed countries have in the course of which they have been substantially responsible for the creation of the global warming problem", as reported by NPR.
However, how quickly will can this hopeful innovation take shape and reach the market with enough capability to change the world's headlong sprint toward the two-degree limit? Developing countries are in toe with significant economic gains predicted in the future with China and India’s GDPs increasing by 64 percent (to $17,100 billion) and 68 percent (to $3,443 billion), respectively, by 2020, compared to statistics from 2014 and based on a forecast by Statista. These statistics, however, were calculated in isolation of the efforts to mitigate climate change may affect the rate of GDP growth, which in turn roughly correlates to energy consumption and vice-versa.
The learning curve established by developing countries may be too steep to be repeated. Mukund Rajan, a member of the Group Executive Council at Tata Sons, was included in an NPR story that they are looking for new way to innovate. "That way has to be through finding technological solutions that we can innovate and that we can share to ensure that we don't go through the same learning curve that the developed countries have in the course of which they have been substantially responsible for the creation of the global warming problem", as reported by NPR.
However, how quickly will can this hopeful innovation take shape and reach the market with enough capability to change the world's headlong sprint toward the two-degree limit? Developing countries are in toe with significant economic gains predicted in the future with China and India’s GDPs increasing by 64 percent (to $17,100 billion) and 68 percent (to $3,443 billion), respectively, by 2020, compared to statistics from 2014 and based on a forecast by Statista. These statistics, however, were calculated in isolation of the efforts to mitigate climate change may affect the rate of GDP growth, which in turn roughly correlates to energy consumption and vice-versa.
In "Carbon Budget: Right to Development is Fundamental, published in Climate Change", an article published in State of India's Environment, Arjuna Srinidhi says that a way of attaining ‘climate justice’ is to distribute “the remaining carbon space among countries to operationalize carbon space”. In other words, the remaining 1,000 Gigatons of CO2 should go to developing countries to allow these entities to reach a similar level of development as indicated by the Human Development Index (HDI), Srinidhi says. However, The Paris Agreement doesn’t provide this stipulation or define the level of development that all countries should be encouraged to reach. 
“We consider the carbon budget required by developing countries to reach a similar level of development as a fundamental ‘right’ and divide the carbon space accordingly,” Srinidhi wrote. “Once sufficient carbon space has been allocated to all developing countries to reach this level […], the remaining carbon space is divided equally among all developed countries on a per capita basis.”
Even though countries and territories that account for about 60 percent of global emissions have announced their emission reduction goals, the pledges combined will keep us on track to reaching temperatures rising more than 2 degrees Celsius, instead of avoiding it. …()
Bhushan said in his critique of The Paris Agreement that developed countries in order to get to where they are now required carbon consumption.
In his words, “The Paris agreement erases the ‘historical responsibility’ of developed countries for causing climate change. Post-Paris, developed countries will be no longer required to cut emissions drastically and vacate the carbon space. In fact, this agreement allows developed countries to continue to occupy more ‘carbon space’ in the future”.
It's true that carbon space, which refers to the amount of “carbon we can still emit into earth’s atmosphere without setting in motion dangerous climate change”, according to an ABC article (“What is ‘Carbon Space’?). The same article mentions that the total carbon space available is about 1,000 Gigatons of CO2 which means that the world can theoretically emit emissions up to this point and not trigger the global climate to warm by more than 2 degrees Celsius, which at the current rate would reach by the year 2039. [Carbon space calculator]
Carbon space differs from other commodities, such as gold, copper, iron and coffee in that it does not originate from anywhere; so, it’s become a matter of who it belongs to and, as such, there’s no argument over equity because then it becomes a matter of trade. However, carbon space is contentious because on one side of the table there’s the argument that developed countries have had their fair share already (or approaching) and developing countries are due theirs, “according to principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities” as reported in an article by Arjuna Sriniohi in 2015- Carbon Budget: Right to development is fundamental. The author goes on to list other approaches:
-- dividing the carbon budget on the basis of per capita,
-- “responsibility, capability and vulnerability”,
-- and, as above, equity and commonly differentiated responsibilities.
This creates a unique situation from India, even apart from other developing countries as we’ll see a bit later.
“From now on, the burden of mitigating, as well as paying for the impacts of climate change, has decisively shifted to developing countries,” continuing with Bhushan’s critique of The Paris Agreement. “Importantly, in the post-Paris scenario, developed countries will have no legal targets on emissions cuts”.
So, as India approaches the table of developed countries with its newly industrialized country-friends - BRICS, it realizes that the developed nations have had their fill and are about to foot the bill, according to Bhushan.
“Nowhere does the agreement say that actions by countries will take into account the remaining carbon space. In other words, India was not able to get the developed countries to vacate carbon space (during The Paris Agreement negotiations). … This will hurt India in the long-run because the carbon space is fast disappearing.[…] I believe the Paris agreement ensures that India is going to be under constant pressure to do more from now onwards.[…] Unfortunately, the Paris agreement is robbing the carbon space of the poor so that the rich can continue with their lifestyles. But I think the poor will fight back. Fortunately, the Paris agreement is the beginning of the negotiations and not the end.”
Does Equity Require Carbon?
His concerns echo those of an earlier expert Shyam Saran, who headed India's international negotiating team on climate change in 2009. As paraphrased in an article by The Economist in an article published the same year, "greenhouse gases are taking up 'carbon space' in the atmosphere,” Saran said. “Past emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases from rich countries have taken up much of that space. Now the poor countries are standing up for their right to a little bit of that space too."
Although developments in sustainability research, technology and other mechanisms hold promise for the future, will they provide a fair playing field, the meaning of which is assumed that countries influence would not equate to just economic power and where countries have obtained their wealth from exploiting resources (those of which contributing to human-induced climate change) are held accountable for their influences? That IS an interesting question.
India has accumulated a considerable size of emissions; however, this amount still pales in comparison to the US, 11,407,871.3 metric tons of CO2 and 97,072,700.6 metric tons of CO2, respectively from 1990 -2014 (see table). India finds itself in, perhaps, an uncomfortable situation among developing countries in that is has a large population, is among the top 10 greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters, its per capita GDP pales in comparison to that of developed countries, and, going forward, Bhushan fears that India is going to get the short end of the stick as climate challenges emerge. Without carbon space India will not have the developmental capacity to face difficulties in providing basic needs, such as food, shelter, infrastructure and energy, he wrote.
Note: HDI, according to its website, argues that monetary measures (GDP per capita) don’t accurately indicate development. Instead, HDI measures a country’s level of “achievement” with a nation’s indicators for longevity, education and income. India was ranked 130 of 188 countries with a 0.609 score in the medium human development category (in 2014, 0.586 and ranked 135), life expectancy increased to 68 years in 2014 (from the previous year) and from 53 in 1980. India’s gender inequality index has a Gii value of 0.563.
“For just four per cent of its GDP, India could provide ‘a basic and modest set of social security guarantees for all citizens with universal pension, basic health care, child benefits and employment schemes’”, according to the United Nations Development Programme in its Human Development Report, 2015, as reported by The Hindu.
India occupies one of the highest gross national product (9th highest of 195 countries) values but ranked 168 of 228 countries on a GDP per capita scale.
Haves and Have-not-yets
The research project that reported that the world’s 85 richest individuals own as much as the poorest half of the global population created sentiments of being on the losing end of a rigged game.
In that report (“Working for the Few” by Oxfam), “The large and rising concentrations of income and wealth in many countries represent a global threat to stable, inclusive societies for one simple reason: the unbalanced distribution of wealth skews institutions and erodes the social contract between citizens and the state”, as reported by The Drum.
Is this the right time to try to decrease the inequality between nations as well as within them? To what extent can this analogy represent how the carbon space held by developed countries over developing and under-developed countries?
Again from Working for the Few: “Extreme economic inequality is damaging and worrying for many reasons: it is morally questionable; it can have negative impacts on economic growth and poverty reduction, and it can multiply social problems. It compounds other inequalities, such as those between women and men. In many countries, extreme economic inequality is worrying because of the pernicious impact that wealth concentrations can have on equal political representation.”
It’s probably safe to assume that developed countries would like to maintain an economic advantage over others. When international agreements fall short of holding Parties “accountable” it can seem like a double standard - systems to cut emissions, apart from certain cities in the developed world, correlate to reduced production and/or stymied development (see link). The trail of carbon emissions gets trickier as trade and production are outsourced, and compounded again when adding carbon cap and trade systems, as argued by Bhushan act as a mechanism by which rich countries can pay their way out of reducing emissions, further adds to the already complicated scenario.
Meanwhile, discussions and pockets of creating an alternative economy are ongoing, and the ones to come out on top probably won't be the underdogs of this story.
The first international conundrum to issue a call to action to every country in the world In Bhushan’s words, it’s "robbing the poor", of carbon space that is.
