Copenhagen - or Copout?

Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon cautioned the delegates gathered in Copenhagen that, “We do not have another year to deliberate,” he said. “Nature does not negotiate.” Did the attending dignitaries heed his advice?

The Copenhagen Summit – UN Conference on Climate Change – that had been two years in the making, opened in the Danish capital on Dec 07. It was attended by delegates from 193 countries, along with 120 Heads of States who were to join near the closing date of December 18th to finalize the deal. The summit began on a cautious note since the agenda contained issues expected to cause friction between developed and the developing nations, and unfolded an eventful two weeks of exhausting activity with not the most desirable outcome.

The issues that dominated the conference included discussions on:

1. Keeping carbon levels to below 2C – preferably 1.5C – by 2020?
2. Limiting emissions from emerging economies, like India and China, who were not too compliant to the idea of emissions cuts monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) through outside inspections.
3. Financing poorest nations to help deal with the effects of global warming.
4. Kyoto Protocol – the only legally binding treaty that requires rich nations to take responsibility for their actions.
5. Deforestation, which is responsible for 17% of all carbon emissions?

A review of carbon missions in millions of tonnes/year estimated in 2007 as reported on The Guardian website gives a fair idea of where true responsibility lies: China: 6283.6 , US: 6006.7, EU:4690.4, Russia: 1672.6, India: 1400.7 Japan:1262.4, Canada: 589.9, UK: 564.0, Australia: 456.4, S Africa: 452.3, Brazil: 397.6, Ethiopia: 5.4 and Maldives: 0.8.

The developing countries sought to impress upon the participants that they remain most vulnerable to effects of climate change in terms of food, water and energy security since they lack resources to counter the disastrous effects of climate change. To mention just a few examples, a report by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 asserted that a sea-level rise of just three feet would be enough to sink 80% of Maldives under water; Bangladesh is losing coastal land mass every year, severe water insecurity in Africa and Asia threatens survival – Darfur is already seeing water clashes, many Asian rivers would dry up when the melting Himalayan ice disappears by 2035 – “Chacaltaya’ glacier in Bolivia, a vital resource of water for almost 2 million people melted away in 2009 while floods, droughts, storms and loss of crops, and danger of extinction for plant and animal species remains a serious concern. Pakistan contributes almost 135th part of what other nations are producing but remains on 12th position in the list of most vulnerable nations in the world.

Despite intense negotiations serious deadlocks on RMVs, emission cutting targets and aid for poor nations crippled the discussions at many points. The Kyoto Protocol also continued to pose a challenge as there was a major push by developed nations to abandon it and replace it with a non-binding political agreement, but the move was strongly resisted by the developing countries.

During the course of the two-week discussions, offers which helped lift the gloom , albeit temporarily, included the US Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s announcement regarding an international plan called The Renewables and Efficiency Deployment Initiative (Climate REDI) – a $350million five-year endeavor backed by Italy, India and Australia for clean technology in developing countries. Ethiopia also put forward a multibillion-dollar plan to raise funds which was supported by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy. An agreement called Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) was also introduced. The United States pledged $1bn over the next three years. Australia, France, Japan, Norway, Britain and America also agreed to provide $3.5bn in immediate cash for forest preservation – for industrialized nations, the carbon credits to be used under a carbon trading system hold a big incentive. The US commitment to support an EU-backed idea of a $100bn fund for poor nations (though dependent on existing budgets) by 2020 was also well received. Another welcome move came from Japan with an offer to cut emissions by 25%, and to provide $15 billion over the next three years to help impoverished countries adapt to global warming's impacts.

Much hope had been pinned on the charismatic American President, as the leader of the world’s largest economy responsible for the largest amount of greenhouse gas emissions until recently. When he finally managed to shape an accord with four Heads of States including Brazil, India, China and South Africa, (named ‘BASIC’) calling it a "meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough”, skeptics like Jim Tones of World Development Movement dismissed it outright, “To say that this deal is in any way historic or meaningful is to completely misrepresent the fact that this deal is devoid of real content.” since it only acknowledged the problem and set no clear limits or guidelines. The chief negotiator for the G77 group of 130 developing countries, Mr. Di-Aping strongly declared, “The developed countries have decided that the damage to developing countries is acceptable.”

India and China strongly resisted any move to include emissions peak by 2020. When references to China’s non-cooperation as a possible cause of the Summit’s relative failure were made, the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao refused to comply with what he considered sacrificing his country’s economic interests in order to take responsibility for a problem that, he stressed, had been caused and aggravated by the Western nations and not by China.

As the African delegates complained of having been kept completely out of any negotiations, and the Sudanese negotiator compared the draft text to “a suicide pact”, the UK threw its weight behind The Copenhagen Accord, and Mr. Ban Ki-Moon asked other countries to accept it and not let the Summit be a complete failure. He promised that “The UN system will work to immediately start to deliver meaningful results to people in need and jump-start clean energy growth in developing countries.” No clear time frame or emissions cut limit were part of the document, even though according to UNIPCC the cuts required by industrialized nations are a 25–40 % reduction by 2020, on 1990 levels. The US had offered a mere 4%. However, what was included in the Accord was a framework for authentication of carbon emissions of developing countries, and formation of a panel to evaluate financial contribution for the developing countries. A wider consensus on the Accord could not be achieved because it clearly fell short of expectations on many scores. The challenge according to Yvo De Boer, Executive Secretary of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in his press briefing on the closing day of Dec19, was to turn it into a legally binding deal in Mexico in 2010.

The message from the leaders of developed countries came across as that even as low-lying island states disappear from the face of inhabitable Earth, and food and water wars destroy the developing world, the resourceful nations will continue to choose their financial interests simply because the effects of their actions are not likely to come back to hurt them badly enough just yet. Choosing short-term goals cannot be a smart choice. After all, the environment is shared by all and “Nature does not negotiate.”


A version of this article was published in SouthAsia Magazine, Jan 2010.

Roaring Rickshaw Rides

Sights, sounds and smells provide important stimuli for evoking memories. The mention of the word ‘rickshaw’ would probably evoke images which are a combination of all three, and not necessarily pleasant, either!


The mere mention of the word, ‘rickshaw’, calls to mind the frequent trips to Resham Gali in search of exquisite silks in the scorching heat of many an enduring summer. Snaking through narrow streets, the adventurous bumpy air-conditioned ride provided a unique experience combining jarring sounds, soot and smoke for me, while the environmentalists struggled to make sense of some grave nightmares.

The word "Rickshaw" originates from the Japanese word jinrikisha which literally means "human-powered vehicle". Runner-pulled rickshaws have been popular as a mode of transport for the elite for centuries. In south Asia, however, it slowly became the preferred mode of travel for the economically disadvantaged sections of societies due to its affordability and point-to-point accessibility. In Asian countries, hand-pulled rickshaws have long been replaced by cycle rickshaws, and recently with auto rickshaws. Hand-pulled rickshaws were officially outlawed in Pakistan in the late 50s and cycle rickshaws in the last decade, but Qingqi, the Chinese motorbike rickshaw, and auto rickshaw is still popular for travelling short distances in some cities of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.

The auto rickshaws of these South Asian countries represent a unique culture of their own with colorful, intricate designs painted on the outside of the body while some even have verses written on them depicting the dreams and aspirations of their owners. It is indeed an entertaining experience to read the humorous modified quotes, but also humbling to learn about the sad reality of a huge section of society mired in poverty and deprivation and struggling to survive.

The advantage of affordability has so far been the most persistent reason for sustenance of this mode of transport. There is usually a fixed fare for the first mile and then a per mile fare according to the distance travelled. For many poor people in India and Pakistan, it is their only means of livelihood and for others, the only affordable means of travel. In Dhaka, which is popularly known as the “Rickshaw capital of the world’ the pullers have mostly migrated from the famine-affected areas in search of an opportunity requiring relatively little investment. In India, most of these drivers originate from Bihar which is considered to be one of its poorest states. A 2008 article by Calvin Trillin in The National Geographic details how Kolkata rickshaw-pullers serve "just a notch above poor" who travel short distances and use it as a n ambulance service, for shopping, for sending their children to school, and for transporting goods for their businesses.

While the hand-pulled and the cycle-pulled rickshaws did not have any environmental hazards, the auto rickshaw has evoked much controversy over the years, prompting criticism, legislation and resulting efforts by world environmental protection enthusiasts, governments and aid agencies, who consider it important to reduce the negative effects of this otherwise popular mode of transport while retaining the livelihood of those who have no other alternative, plus the convenience factor of easy accessibility for a large numbers of travelers.

Research has shown that the two-stroke engine powered rickshaws emit excessive smoke, release un-burnt hydrocarbons and produce an uncomfortable level of noise. Also, the unchecked usage of substandard lubricant and its direct mixing with gasoline has made the two-stroke rickshaws a huge environmental hazard. The drivers are also inclined to remove silencers to accommodate emission of un-burnt oil, and that increases noise pollution. Moreover, overloading results in the slow speed at which rickshaws move and adds to the traffic mess that our cities already have enough trouble sorting out.

A major health concern regarding rickshaw drivers is the effects of smoke inhalation as the rickshaw is open on all sides and burning eyes, respiratory disorders and nausea are common ailments among them. Their hearing is also affected with continuous exposure to the high noise level, but their economic situation forces them to continue working in hazardous conditions. The riders too suffer similar symptoms, albeit to a lesser degree, as they are exposed for a relatively shorter time. These are issues the poorer societies of the world learn to live with because for them the quality of life is not a priority – survival is.

Various initiatives have been undertaken by governments in this regard. Many a times, bans have been announced but not seen through because the issue of rehabilitating a large number of rickshaw owners and drivers has been a major concern due to economic restraints. Other options have been explored with World Agencies playing a major role. Environment Canada has helped the Pakistan Government in implementing projects in Lahore, Karachi and Quetta with engine technology that uses Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) instead of petrol in the two-stroke engines, in an effort to combat environmental pollution. As a consequence, CNG Rickshaws replaced petrol and diesel-powered rickshaws in large numbers in Pakistani cities. The CNG rickshaws emit much less smoke, and the low cost of CNG makes this an attractive option since the upward trend of oil prices remains a stark reality and serious consideration for consumers. The owners are able to recover the cost of converting to CNG by raising the rent that the drivers pay. The drivers, in turn, are willing to accept that because the turnover is still more than from running the rickshaws on diesel or petrol. Recently, the Punjab government in Pakistan has also reached an agreement with China to replace inter-city buses with CNG buses and by 2011 there would not be any diesel buses.

When the government announced the ban on two-stroke rickshaws in Lahore in 2003 to phase out two-stroke rickshaws by 2007, there was a strong protest from the people as 700,000 people were estimated to be earning their living by the city’s 60,000 two-stroke rickshaws and it was feared that their families would starve if two-stroke rickshaws were banned because they did not have enough money to buy four-stroke rickshaws. Following the decision of the ban, however, the government set up a Rs 1 billion fund to give people loans to purchase four-stroke CNG rickshaws. In 2004, the Punjab government also imposed a ban on manufacturing, sale and registration of two-stroke rickshaws as it was estimated that almost 70% air pollution in Lahore and a major chunk of noise pollution on the streets was contributed by the two-stroke rickshaws.

In Bangladesh, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Government of Bangladesh and the Rupantarita Prakritik Gas Co. Ltd, worked together in converting rickshaw engines to run on compressed natural gas (CNG). The Canadian agency, Environment Canada, provided technical support. In Dhaka, The idea of CNG conversions is not new, and has been around since the early 1980s, but it was actually around 2001 that a large scale switch over was finally seen due to wider acceptance of the economical and safe usage of CNG.

In 1998, when the government acknowledged the high levels of pollution in Dehli, and the Indian Supreme Court ordered the government to implement CNG fuel for public transport in an effort to bring down the high pollution levels, a dramatic improvement was seen within a short period of time. In addition to the CNG-powered rickshaws, some Indian companies have also introduced electric-powered three-wheelers. However, all these vehicles are expensive, and may only be used where rickshaws are used to provide transportation to cover the last mile or kilometer.

The rickshaw culture of South Asia is an enduring feature that still holds an important place in people’s lives, and if steps are taken to bring down its hazardous effects, the adventurous bumpy ride can continue to retain its usefulness for the sections that most need it.

A version of this article was published in SouthAsia Magazine, Nov, 09.