80th Annual General Meeting
February 15-16, 2008

Address by Shri Kapil Sibal, Hon'ble Union Minister for Science
and Technology and Earth Sciences

Mr. Khorakiwala, President, FICCI,
Dr. Amit Mitra,
Dr. Ghosh,
Ashwin Shroff,
Distinguished members of the audience, excellencies,

All this is too much! We are to do a job and we just did the job! That is all that was done!
One day of course, this story will have to be told of what really happened. Let me just go to the substance of the matter. As Ghosh told, there are four building blocks to climate change, which are the building blocks that are the foundation of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change; the four building blocks are mitigation, adaptation, S&T and finance. Why are these four?

Under the UNFCCC, the responsibility of mitigation, that is, reduction of GHG, devolves upon the developed world, reflected in Annex-I. As far as adaptation, S&T and finance is concerned, that applies to the developing world. In other words, the developing world is not obligated for any mitigation measures, under UNFCCC. In other words, we are not obliged to reduce our GHG emissions. For us, we have to meet the challenges of adaptation, of the ill-effects of climate change and global warming. For that, we need technology and we need finance.

So, the architecture of the framework convention was this. Under the Kyoto Protocol, there was a commitment of the developed world - that they were obligated to reduce their GHG emissions at 5% below the 1990 levels. In the course of the negotiations, a working group was set up, called the adhoc working group which had to indicate as to what would be the road map, post-2012, and what would be the levels of reduction of emissions or mitigation measures by the developed world, namely the Annex-I countries, post-2012. Between 2008-2012, under Kyoto, the mitigation measures were to be achieved with reference to the commitments which were 5% below the 1990 levels of emission. This is broadly what these negotiations were all about.

Then came the 4th assessment report of the inter-governmental panel on climate change. The Western world decided that this was an ideal opportunity to change the framework of negotiations. So, they started the conference by saying that the IPCC report has come; this has now resulted in a sea-change from what was happening in Kyoto and post-Kyoto; we are confronted with an enormously emergent situation and we need to deal with the situation now and so, we need an entirely new framework. So, all the Western countries decided that the roadmap set up by the Framework Convention and Kyoto must be changed. Because there are two emerging economies of the world, namely China and India, it is necessary for China and India to also make quantified commitments on reduction of emissions under the new agreement. Because even if they were to comply with Kyoto, it would not change the ill-effects of emissions because of the two emerging economies. So, the whole Conference started in this environment and speaker after speaker sought to change the agenda. So, our first task was to say no, you cannot change the rules of the game. That was our first task.

I intervened and we started off by saying that we really appreciate the concern that the Western world is showing for the ill-effects of climate change; and we are really obliged by the extent of sensitivity that they have shown. We would have thought that with the 4th assessment report of the IPCC, the Western world will come openly and say that our commitments under the Kyoto were not enough, we should do much more than that. This is an occasion for the Western world, not to change the rules of the game, but to show - consistent with their sensitivity - larger measures of commitment. This was then the nature of the debate that went on.
The greatest victory at Bali is that we did not allow the rules of the game to the changed! That is one part.

The second part, which is also very interesting was that the European Union and the US were on one objective, namely, to get China and India on the table, for reduction of emissions and mitigation measures. On this, they were one. Our task was to some how ensure that there is a rift between the EU and the US. Otherwise, we would not have succeeded. I would not give you the details; it so happened that the G-77 countries got together, and China got together and said - they asked me, please you may negotiate on behalf of the G-77. So, it was Australia, the President of the EU, Portugal and the USA on the one side and myself on the other. The EU and the US were together on this. The negotiations started by the US representative, James Connoten telling me that we are wanting to come on the table, but if we only come on the table it may not serve the purpose, and if China and India also agree to come on the table, it would be better. The EU said that it was very reasonable. After all, this is for the first time that the US itself is saying that it is going to be a part of the negotiation and it is going to commit itself for mitigation measures; unless the US comes on the table, you are not going to get any results on the climate change because the US pollution levels are the highest in the world - 20% of all the pollution in the world comes from the US. The per capita emissions are 22 tonnes or 20 tonnes per person of CO2. So, what is the point of negotiating amongst us, if US is not on board; and if the US is willing to come on board, it is only reasonable; for, the US is saying that it is for India and China also to come the table; we are not wanting you to be away; we are saying that let us have a new agreement and let us then, look at all these things afresh.

So, my only response to the US was this - has India ever asked you to come on board? I said, I never ever at any stage asked you to come on board; you are a sovereign country; you are entitled to take your own decisions; if you want to come on board, you should come on board; if you do not want to, you are welcome, not to. It is not India's condition that you should come on board. If India is not putting any conditions on you, why should you put conditions on us?

So, he said, we will not come on board. The EU at this point in time, decided that they cannot go back home without the US on board. So, they told the US, how can you do this? You have to come on board! They said, no, you have to come on board; there is the US Congress and the US Congress is telling that if India and China do not join, we will start it; there is a possibility of sanctions; President Bush does not want that. I said, that again is a sovereign decision! It has nothing to do with India; if you want to impose sanctions, you can impose sanctions! What you do is your business! Please allow us to do our business!

So, when they realized that they could not bargain, it is then that the EU pressured the US, whether India and China makes commitments or not, you cannot run away from the negotiations. So, we were able to actually split.

Ultimately, to cut the long story short, when I moved that amendment, EU was the first to support it. So, the US was isolated; the Europeans could go back home and say that we brought the US on board. The US went home and said that we came on board, but we gave no quantitative commitments! India and China came away and said that the old Framework continues!

But the sad part is that what was happening was in the nature of a corporate battle, in a board room! The attempt was to set the agenda for the future. Nobody was talking about the enormous challenge that is ahead on account of global warming. The corporate agenda was sought to be set for political and economic considerations, not for shareholder value. That is the sad part.

The fact of the matter is that as we talk, the levels of emissions of the very countries who wanted a new agreement are far beyond, much more than they committed to - in fact, today in the countries like Portugal and other EU countries, the emission levels are much higher than when they agreed on Kyoto. They are increasing.

I went to Australia the other day. The Australian per capita emissions are 24 tonnes. They were one of the biggest protagonists of climate change and global warming, because the emissions cannot be reduced; it is because their lifestyles cannot change. If your town planning structures are such that you live in the suburban areas and drive 100 miles to your place of work, that cannot change. The whole town planning exercise in the entire West is entirely different.

Their idea was to get India and China on board, make them give commitments, pressurize them, take advantage of the enormous economic opportunities, use the markets and make Indian and Chinese industries even more non-competitive! This was their objective.

We were lucky to get away with that. But the fact of the matter is that we only were able to buy time.

There were also, on the sidelines, meetings of the Finance Ministers. Their objective now is going to be, both at the G-8 - this is my fear - to start talking about non-tariff barriers. In other words, they want to try and achieve the objective through the other route, because they know that till 2009, nothing is going to happen. Since the old Framework continues, and we have not allowed that to change, post-2009 also, nothing much will happen, even after Copenhagen.

With the report of the adhoc Working Group which tells us what is going to happen post-2009, and with the figures that will emerge of their increasing emissions, it will be difficult for the Western world in Copenhagen to set any agenda for us. They know that. So, they will try all kinds of things and we have to be careful on these issues. We need therefore to ensure that we start, in India, giving to our industry, incentives, appropriate policy frameworks and an environment in which they can adopt and adapt green technologies so that they have a level playing field, when we come to a stage when we cannot resist the pressure.

That should be our policy objective. The fact of the matter is that global warming is a very serious issue. The fact of the matter is that if you really look at the Planet Earth, you have what is called an area between the surface of the Earth and seven miles above the surface, called the Troposphere and it is only the bottom one-third of the Troposphere that has oxygen and the rest of it does not even have oxygen. So, the global community lives on the oxygen at the bottom one-third of the Troposphere which is only seven miles from the surface of the Earth.

If the level of CO2 were to be 1% of the atmosphere, the average global temperature would be boiling point! So, this is a very serious issue and all of us must realize that.

Secondly, the whole debate has now started revolving around coal technologies, because nobody is willing to give up coal. That is the other part of the politics, which you must understand. When I was in Australia - I can share this with you - a substantial part of our dialogue with the Australians was that why does not India adopt clean coal technologies?

The fact of the matter is that the maximum amount of coal is in China, India, Australia and the USA. They all realize that in the ultimate analysis, they cannot go out of it - till there are alternative sources of energy, they have to rely upon coal. So, they are not talking about coal sequestration. They are talking about liquefaction of coal technologies; they are talking about gasification of the technology; that is, you gasify the coal on the bowls of the Earth, take the gas, leave CO2 and use it as energy; you have liquefaction technology which is applicable in South Africa. Now, they are talking about sequestration; that is, in other words, you use the coal and from the plants, you take the coal and send it through pipelines, to the remote parts of the country and put it deep in the bowls of the Earth to sequester there. The fact of the matter is that these are all exceptionally expensive technologies. For the developing world, we cannot afford those technologies and there are technologies 15-20 years down the road.

In the meantime, we need to use that coal for our energy, because we have hydro-electric capacities, to generate energy from hydro-electric plants - it is limited, because most of the rivers are in the North West and in the north east; and you have certain considerations which I need not talk about here, in the north east. We need to have international agreements with countries across the border to set up those dams, for the purposes of generation of electricity. So, our opportunity to increase our electricity generation exponentially is limited in the hydro sector.

We do not have much oil reserves in any case; 70% is what we import and I dare say that the price of a barrel of oil is going to increase beyond $100. I said six months ago that it will touch $100; nobody believed me. But it touched $100; and it is going to go beyond. We are seeing already the bottom of the barrel of oil. That is not a resource that is going to be available.

To carry gas from pipelines, from across the border is another very difficult and daunting task. We do not have enough gas reserves in India to meet the increasing demands. The debate on nuclear technology is, as you know how difficult that proposition is.

From any standpoint that is the situation. Wind power is only 4%. At this point, our energy requirements are like that. If we have a 135 lakh MW of generation today, in 2020, the requirement would be 448,000 MW. By 2030, it will be 1 million MW. So, if a country has to continue to grow at a GDP rate of 9-10%, then your energy demands will have to be met. This huge gap cannot be covered by the resources that you have and so, you need to look at coal. But the fact of the matter is that nobody will allow you to use that coal. The international pressure will be enormous. If they cannot get it through these negotiations, they will try and get it through another way.

So, we need, as a nation, to really start thinking about quick solutions. The quicker we put in place a mechanism and a policy framework, it is better. I can tell you that the answers are not going to come from Bali or are not going to come from Copenhagen. The answers are going to come through technologies. The solution will be from technologies - solar energy, photo-voltaic, thin glass energy, bio-mass, solid wastes, bio-materials, cell technologies, etc. The investments in S&T, they are going to bring the answers for energy; the quicker we realize, as a nation, that that is the way forward, the quicker we will allow our industry to be competitive in the future and the more laggard we are at decision making, the more difficult it would be for entrepreneurs and the industrialists in this country.

Unfortunately, I must say that as a nation we are not thinking in those terms. Therefore, I do not really give much significance for what was said; I thank Ghosh for what he said, but I do not really give much significance to our scenic victory. This is a temporary respite that we have achieved in the larger context.

Our victory will only come when we are able to give to our consumers, electricity at cheap prices through clean sources of energy which are limitless. That will be the real victory both for climate change and for the people of this country! That is where we need to go.

The fact of the matter is this - a very prominent environmentalist in Japan once said that we are beginning to hear the groaning of this tortured Planet. He said this many years ago - we are beginning to hear the groaning of this tortured Planet. We must understand that if we consider this Planet our home, we need to change not the Planet but ourselves.

That is what we need to change - we need to change the way we think, the way we live, the way we interact, the way we plan our cities, emphasis on public transportation, etc. This is the way we need to go. We do not inherit this Planet from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. This is not our personal property; this is an asset that we devolve. I always say, when I go somewhere, that these are family jewels - coal ultimately is a family jewel. It takes millions and billions of years to have seams of coal in the bowls of the Earth - billions of years. How does it happen? It is very simple. Little leaves fall; trees falls; millions of years pass; the trees on the bowls of the Earth, the oxygen from the trees gets taken out; it turns black and over millions of years, it becomes coal. The hardest coal of all is anthracite. Then, of course, we have little jewelry for women, who had diamonds, which is another form of coal. But that comes through nature, with billions of years. We want to destroy that resource and put it into the atmosphere in 200 Years! How will nature tolerate it! The nature cannot tolerate it.

Imagine, what nature has done! At every stage to make coal, it has done what we want to do in the world and in the 21st century - value addition.

What are the mantras for the 21st century? For everything that you do, you must add value. The nature has done it for you - from leaves to trees, to carbon, to anthracite, to diamond. It is a natural process. No man made interventions.

If nature adds value, why do you want to destroy that value in 200 years? There is enough on Earth for every man's needs, as Mahatma said, but not for every man's greed. So, we must think differently, with changed mind sets. Do not follow the western patterns of planning and systems. We need to look at our own traditions, the way we lived, etc.
Ghosh will tell you; he had done enormously studies. Incidentally, it is the foundation stones. If the four building blocks of the UNFCCC, what I said, the four building blocks were our bureaucrats, who did remarkable work, he will tell you, how lifestyles of Indians in India are naturally sustainable. Our levels of emissions are just about 1 tonne per capita in India, as opposed to the world average of 4 tonnes. We need to move along with that.

So, thank you very much for this wonderful opportunity to share some of my thoughts.