Interview with Sir David King, special representative on climate change, UK, who is currently on a visit to India. Excerpts.
What is the reason for your visit? What do think about operationalising the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and technology transfer to developing countries?
The British government has been very keen to see the operationalising of the Green Climate Fund (GCF). It was never us blocking the operationalising process nor was it the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. It appears that we are now close to operationalising the GCF and we will be pushing for that to be developed and we are ready to put money into it from a British point of view.
The key point of my visit to India is we are proposing to set up a new program, called the Global Apollo Programme. Its objective is not to land a man on the moon but to reach the point where renewable energy is cheaper to produce electricity.
The objective of this is to create a consortium of willing countries to join in this process. This is likely to include Britain, Japan, US and other European countries. But what is very important for us is to feel that India is willing to come on board - the proposal is that each country will put three members on the consortium which will develop a roadmap of research, development and demonstration projects to achieve its objectives. We are looking to raise through this process a fund of $10 billion a year for ten years which would go into research.
In India, this should allay the fears of technology transfer because you would be involved in the development of new technology. Every country has to put in money. We are looking at ten countries and suggesting an entrance fee of 0.02 per cent of their GDP.
Let me clarify. Each country will spend this in their own country. Collaborations with other members of the consortium will add to other countries expenditure in India. In Britain we don’t expect all of this money to be spent there. Particularly the demonstration projects we would like to see going to least developed countries. I see the US possibly being part of it. India hopefully being part of it, I would like to see China, Brazil and I think the countries that would be involved are the OECD plus the emerging economies- they are the critical players. The beneficiaries are the least developed countries in terms of the output.
We have seen the cost of installation of photo voltaic cells (PVCs) come down dramatically from $75 a watt in the 1970s to $0.5 dollar a watt. India is also installing PVC and it is now approaching parity with coal fired energy using imported coal. This is intermittent energy and we need good technology of storing- a lot of this programme will be focused on research, development and demonstration on new means of large scale storage of energy- nuclear, wind power and solar. Wind and solar are intermittent while nuclear is constant- if you are producing too much energy from nuclear you can store it and use it when there is am demand. For all forms of energy, storage is the missing technology. Smart grid technology is needed and money could be invested in renewable research development and demonstration.
This is a transformational process, it is meant to be creating a real push for technology development so we can rapidly achieve the objective of staying below two degrees C. Economically we would be a position to switch to renewable energy because its cheaper than coal fired energy.
What about the Lima Conference of Parties (COP) meeting this year?
I have been saying that Lima is more than just another COP –Lima is the last COP before Paris, it is critically important that we get heads of agreement at Lima so we have a year for details of heads of agreement to be thrashed out- I see the US and China coming on board-whereas they didn’t at Copenhagen- that was the reason for my saying the world should abandon the Kyoto Protocol. We have a new treaty and I do believe that US and China will sign.
You said the world should abandon the Kyoto Protocol -- what should be the basis of a new climate treaty?
The new treaty that emerges in Paris has to be fit for purpose, by that, I mean the United Nations at Bali committed itself to limiting temperature rise as a result of anthropogenic climate change to two degrees Centigrade or less and that’s my measure of success in Paris, that is a big challenge. The Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has pointed out that at the moment global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are rising at 3.2 per cent per annum averaged over the last ten years and it also says that if we want to stay within the two degree C limit we have to turn from that 3.2 per cent increase into a 2 per cent per annum decrease from 2020 onwards.
If we go to 2043, we would run out of our carbon budget at 3.2 per cent increase per annum and then we would have to have an infinitely sharp drop which is impossible.
That’s how I would measure success from Paris in 2015- but Paris itself is not the end point- Paris is another stage which is a is a critically important one and I do believe we will get an agreement in Paris. Then we have to evaluate how close the outcome of that is compared with the desired outcome that I have spelt out earlier.
What do you think of India’s stand and the issue of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR). Do you think this is a fair position by developing countries that the first world for instance, the US as the largest cumulative emitter, should pay for mitigation and adaptation? You did say earlier that talks could derail because of this position.
The two are connected. In essence CBDR can be interpreted in different ways, depending on who is talking. I certainly accept the principle of CBDR but then we may disagree about how that should be interpreted. In particular we really have to recognise that the world has changed since 1992. When you say India and China are developing countries, I am going to suggest there is a very big difference between the least developed countries in today in the world and India, China and Brazil which have accelerated their growth so much that they have to be described as emerging powers/economies.
So there is a new category of countries that have come through. Critically important is that the OECD countries in particular should be decreasing their emissions, and should be committed to decreasing their emissions on a faster scale so as to achieve no more than two tonnes of Carbon dioxide per person by mid century –that’s the British commitment.
We made that commitment- because we think all OECD countries should do so. We are not saying that, for example, for India because you are only just over two tonnes per annum of carbon dioxide emissions at the moment. I think we can anticipate a trajectory from India that would be a good one for India where it increases its emissions while development continues through burning coal but with a plan by 2050 to keep emissions at two tonnes per person per annum. That keeps us at two degrees C and allows India room for developing while new technologies come through.
The UK is a good player, we have created a fund of 0 .7 per cent of GDP for development aid and we have been spending that significantly particularly in least developed countries. We are keen to demonstrate our willingness on the GCF and we have done this by set up our own International Climate Fund and we have put 3.9 billion Pounds which we have begun spending on exactly what India is asking for. I do not think that the red line that the US has put on the amount of capital in the GCF will change, I imagine the redline will stay and that could be a blocker for countries like India- but I sincerely hope not.
The overriding factor is it is India’s economic interest to see that an international agreement is achieved. It’s in India’s economic interest to be a party to this process, for transition from a coal based economy to a renewable energy economy would be accelerated by this new agreement.
