Polaris  

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to India has lent considerable attention to climate change as an area of discord in the bilateral relationship, resulting (most notably) in this showdown between her and Jairam Ramesh:

The disagreement between the two states on tackling climate change has hints of both the nuclear disarmament stand-off from the 1960s to 1990s (similar aims but different methods, and the perceived inequality between ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’) and the ongoing Doha Round of the WTO negotiations (the ability to threaten India’s development and the livelihoods of a large segment of its population).

Environmental enthusiasts have taken the occasion of Clinton’s visit to voice some of their concerns about India’s position. For a sampling, see editorials in the Financial Times (”Delhi is right that the rich nations must do far more to reduce carbon emissions than the poor. The rich created the problem. But India is irresponsible in flatly rejecting any global targets.”) and The New York Times (”[India] needs to do more…as a major contributor to global warming — to join the developed countries in cutting greenhouse gas emissions.”),  and op-eds in the FT and The Wall Street Journal.

It is the last article in the WSJ that is in many respects the most thought-provoking, as it addresses the core issues being contested by India and the United States on climate change. The author argues that just as the developed countries did not consider the environmental problems associated with industrialization until recently, the developing countries did not anticipate the complications associated with population growth. The developed and developing countries therefore should share the blame and responsibility for the environmental problems of the present and future, as they contributed to both the pollution and the number of polluters.

Okay. But there is an important difference. It is one thing for governments to have provided legislation to curb environmental degradation, especially for the industries most responsible. Legislating for consumers has proven (and will prove) much, much more difficult, most notably because it restricts personal choice. For similar reasons, legal restriction on the rights of citizens to reproduce has been, and will be, all but impossible in a liberal, democratic society. China did famously enforce a one-child policy, but when Sanjay Gandhi attempted population control through sterilisation in India, it was clearly unacceptable. The piece, therefore, betrays an unappreciation of basic liberal democratic values.

Secondly, if you were to use the article’s arguments to fashion a workable climate regime, one that results in a legally binding structure that falls short of per capita emissions, you would end up in a situation whereby a resident of India would legally be more restricted in his or her ability to produce emissions at the same level as a resident of the United States. Whether this is based on 1950, 2000 or 2050 population figures is almost irrelevant; a state-based regime will be inherently unequal to certain groups in certain states. All this means is that: a) it will be rejected by those countries and populations it does not favour, probably more vehemently than even the non-proliferation regime, since people’s livelihoods are at stake, and b) it will increase the pressures of migration to places where individuals will be less restricted in their ability to develop and prosper.

So by furthering an argument that is both unreasonable and unworkable, the environmental lobby is just shooting itself in the foot.