Ministry of External Affairs Government of India

India and the World: Addressing the Climate Crisis

• 

  By: Ambassador (Retd.) Ajai Malhotra
  Venue: IIM Trichy
  Date: September 10, 2022
  

Hon’ble Prof. Pawan Kumar Singh, Director, IIM Tiruchirappalli,

Hon’ble Prof. Gopal V., Dean Academics,

Hon’ble Prof. Uppam Pushpak Makhecha,

Respected Professors and dear Students.

I am grateful for the invitation to address this distinguished gathering at your splendid, state-of-the-art campus in beautiful Tiruchirappalli. Thank you for the warm welcome and generous hospitality extended to me by IIM Trichy. My gratitude goes also to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, for making our interaction possible under its Distinguished Lecture Series. My talk today will focus on the climate crisis. It is a defining issue of our time and global efforts to address it are at a sensitive and pivotal moment.

India’s involvement in multilateral environmental negotiations is deep rooted and of long-standing. Half a century ago, India was the first country to highlight the linkage between environment and development, emphasizing at the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, that "the environment cannot be improved in conditions of poverty”. The Stockholm Conference established the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), which in 1982 convened in Nairobi a ‘UNEP Session of a Special Character: Ten Years after Stockholm’. I was privileged to serve as Rapporteur of one of its two Committees. That Session recognized that most global environmental threats had grown over the previous decade, including from acid rain, air, soil and water pollution, desertification and deforestation, and depletion of the ozone layer. It also drew attention to early signs of the disruptive potential of climate change.

These environmental themes soon became issues of global concern and India participated actively in efforts seeking their resolution via multilateral cooperation. Thus, we piloted the 1990 London Amendments to the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, setting in place the crucial funding mechanism that ensured the success of global efforts to tackle ozone depletion. We played a decisive role in crafting the 1992 Biodiversity Convention. We have also been a major player in negotiations leading to the adoption of the 1990 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change, and follow-up climate diplomacy.

The Disrupting Impact of Climate Change

Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions (i.e., of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and several industrial gases) have been impacting the Earth’s climate since the Industrial Revolution. Current GHG emissions are the highest in human history. While a minuscule number of climate deniers remain, there is overwhelming scientific certainty that increasing GHG concentration in the atmosphere due to human activities has been the dominant cause of the observed heating of our planet since 1950. Human influence has warmed the climate at a rate unprecedented in at least the last 2000 years. The atmospheric CO2 concentration, presently at 416 part​s per million, is the highest in at least two million years and reflects a consistently rising trend. Rising temperatures, rather than the relative stability of the past, have increasingly become routine across the world. Twenty of the twenty one hottest years on record have occurred since the year 2000. New, all-time heat records are increasingly being set in countries and regions across the globe.

The climate challenge is disrupting our world in numerous ways. Extreme weather events have sharply intensified; across the world we see more frequent and intense cyclones, droughts, floods, storm surges, temperature rise and change in precipitation patterns, beyond natural climate variability. The sea level is rising and oceans becoming more acidic due to greater CO2 absorption. Glaciers, ice, permafrost, and snow have reduced, with the impact on Arctic ice being particularly severe. The risk of death, injury and ill-health has grown, while livelihoods are being dislocated in low-lying coastal zones. Increased river, coastal and urban floods are causing considerable loss of life and damage to infrastructure and settlements.

The 5th Assessment Synthesis Report of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC; 2014) affirmed the scientific evidence of climate change. It reflects the peer-reviewed scientific consensus of 831 expert authors from 85 countries and emphasized that risks arising from warming of 2°C above pre-industrial levels would pose challenges to human security, affecting development, food and water supplies, health, infrastructure, and livelihoods in many parts of the world, including India. Reports of the three Working Groups of the IPCC 6th assessment cycle, issued in August 2021, February 2022, and April 2022, have reaffirmed these findings and the 6th IPCC Assessment Synthesis Report is due in late 2022 or early 2023. Indeed the WGII Report of February 2022 notes that "across sectors and regions the most vulnerable people and systems are … disproportionately affected” and "rise in weather and climate extremes has led to some irreversible impacts as natural and human systems are pushed beyond their ability to adapt.”

India is one of the top ten disaster-prone countries, with almost 85% of India’s landmass susceptible to one or multiple hazards. India is particularly vulnerable to accelerated sea level rise as 14.2% of its population reside in its coastal districts or islands. If global temperatures rise beyond +2°C, around seven million people are projected to be displaced by the 2070’s due, inter alia, to submersion of parts of Chennai, Kolkata and Mumbai. The harsh consequences of climate change will deepen India’s developmental challenges, given the number of its poor who depend on climate sensitive sectors for their livelihood.

Projections across climate models agree that more frequent and heavy rainfall days and an increase in extreme rainfall events related to monsoons are very likely in South Asia. There would be a rise in the volume of rainfall during the Indian monsoon season. Besides more water, its delivery pattern would change. While the number of monsoon days is expected to reduce, the rainfall intensity would be more.

As an aside, the severe urban flooding that struck Indian cities such as Mumbai in 2005, Srinagar in 2014, Chennai in 2015, and Bengaluru in 2022, also suggests interaction between climate change and traditional stressors, such as rapid and unplanned urbanization, that make drainage systems inadequate and reduce natural water storage areas. Chennai, a coastal city, Srinagar, nestling in a valley, and Bengaluru atop a low plateau, all have vastly differing topography, but the correctives to be applied are similar, e.g., reversing the encroachment of housing on river floodplains, reviving natural drainage channels to serve as storm water drains, and implementing greener urban planning and better design. A disaster-sensitised population, an effective early warning communication system with accompanying disaster response plan, and provision of adequate flood insurance cover, would also be crucial. In much of the world there is a tendency to avoid or postpone disaster prevention expenditure, yet the return from disaster prevention is invariably better than from reconstruction. Disasters cost India a loss of over $10 billion annually, primarily due to flooding, and securing disaster risk reduction is a smart investment that needs to be made as part of our adaptation efforts.

Higher temperatures would mean that pathogens and parasites will multiply faster, escalating many tropical diseases. Studies show an association between heavy rainfall, higher temperatures, and cholera and diarrhea outbreaks. Japanese encephalitis, dengue fever and malaria too are linked in India with high temperature and rainfall patterns. Increased heat stroke related mortality could undermine progress in tackling disease, malnutrition and early deaths. A warmer atmosphere could worsen existing respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses and spread tropical diseases and pests to new areas. Incidence of mental disorders and post-traumatic stress syndrome would rise in disaster-struck areas. Contaminated urban flood waters will raise exposure to disease and toxic compounds. Extreme weather events may collapse health and emergency services, electricity and water supply.

Ecosystems as well as global food production will also be seriously impacted, Drought, increased unpredictability of rain, and rising temperatures would reduce crop yields, affect livelihoods and exports, and cause food shortages and malnutrition. Most of the food-insecure are in South Asia, where well over 400 million poor and undernourished people currently live, and climate change will disproportionately harm them. Heat stress would decrease labour productivity. Ocean acidification would harm marine life and fisheries. Migration patterns and geographic range of several species have already started shifting in a reaction to global warming.

Multilateral Climate Diplomacy

Multilateral climate diplomacy needs to be viewed against this backdrop. Global environmental negotiations boil down to agreeing upon how the world tackles such serious concerns and the basis on which countries share the costs and benefits of enhanced environmental protection. Since all countries desire a healthy environment and prefer climate stability, such negotiations have generally focused on working out an international consensus on (a) who is causing the problem and is therefore mainly responsible for climate change, historically and currently; (b) what precisely must be done to tackle the problem; and (c) how the main financial and technological burden for corrective action should be shared between wealthy, technologically advanced, industrialized nations and not so well off developing countries.

Developed countries have historically been responsible for excessive levels of GHG emissions in their process of industrialization and they remain their main emitters on a per capita basis. So, the primary responsibility devolves on them to address the problem, particularly since they also have the requisite financial and technological capacities to do so. As part of international cooperation, developed countries need to extend new and additional financial resources and technological cooperation on concessional and preferential terms to developing countries to enable them to more effectively respond to climate change.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992)

Extensive negotiations led to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) being agreed upon in 1992. Its ultimate objective is to stabilise GHGs in the atmosphere "at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." It is based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR&RC) of its ratifying states. In negotiations leading to its adoption, India consistently highlighted equity, historical responsibility and per capita emissions as the basis for a differentiated approach to collective arrangements being considered. The notions of fairness, justice and equity underlying its differentiation between developed and developing countries in terms of responsibilities and capabilities, remain as relevant today. The UNFCCC also recognized that developing countries cannot be required to divert scarce resources from their overriding priorities of social and economic development and poverty eradication. While it contains no enforcement mechanisms, the UNFCCC visualized follow-up protocols/agreements to reach its objective and annual Conference of Parties (COP) started being convened.

Kyoto COP 3 (1997); Kyoto Protocol

Negotiations on climate change subsequent to adoption of the UNFCCC led to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 at COP 3. It provided for a joint GHG emission reduction target for industrialised countries of at least 5% below 1990 levels to be achieved between 2008-2012. Developing countries were exempted from a quantified emission reduction commitment under the Kyoto Protocol, which entered into force in November 2004. The EU and a few others kept the post Kyoto process alive, partly by allowing industrialised countries more room for counting carbon sequestration in soils and trees and agreeing on more flexible compliance procedures. But the Kyoto Protocol was never ratified by the U.S. Congress, and USA withdrew support to it in 2001 describing it as ‘fatally flawed’. Gradually a search for a new basis for international cost and benefit sharing of climate action got underway.

Copenhagen COP 15 (2009)

The next important landmark was the Copenhagen Accord of 2009, which identified an aspirational goal of limiting global temperature increase to 2°C. It also included a commitment by developed countries to provide $30 billion in 2010-2012 to help developing countries, and a goal of annually mobilizing $100 billion in public and private finance by 2020 via a new Green Climate Fund.

Cancun COP 16 (2010)

Agreements at Cancun a year later gave a new direction to post-Copenhagen negotiations, by shifting from a top-down architecture to one in which national pledges are aggregated into a joint international effort subject to an international review procedure. The Cancun Agreements also established a Technology Mechanism to support development and transfer of mitigation and adaptation technologies to developing countries.

Paris COP 21 (2015); Paris Agreement on Climate Change

Subsequent negotiations culminated with COP 21 adopting the Paris Agreement on Climate Change on December 12, 2015. It entered into force on November 4, 2016. It committed States Parties to limit global warming to well below 2°C and to keep it as close as possible to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. While the Paris Agreement is contoured like a legally binding instrument, many of its most important provisions are voluntary and non-binding. In a preambular reference it notes ‘climate justice’ as being ‘important to some’. The significance of sustainable lifestyles and sustainable patterns of consumption and production in addressing climate change is acknowledged in its preambular portion. It retains passing references to the principle of CBDR&RC, while reinterpreting and largely paying lip service to it. It specifies that the Agreement will be implemented to reflect equity and the CBDR&RC principle, in ‘the light of different national circumstances’. Unlike the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement entirely avoids mentioning historical GHG emissions and side-steps the requirement that the developed countries take the lead in combating climate change and its adverse effects. Instead, the Paris Agreement replaces the Annex-based approach to differentiation in responsibilities, incorporated in the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol, by a methodology that permits self-differentiation and takes into account changes in a country’s circumstance and capacity. It also substitutes the "top-down” approach of the Kyoto Protocol by a "bottoms-up” one based on voluntary, nationally determined pledges to be made by all States Parties. It has also inbuilt a process by which States Parties will take stock of their collective progress every five years and put forward progressively more ambitious GHG emission reduction plans for subsequent five-year periods. It uses a transparency and accountability framework to incentivize States Parties to deliver on their respective non-legally binding Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), or else face public criticism and peer pressure.

Under the Paris Agreement, each State Party pledged via an NDC to ‘contribute’ what it can to tackle global warming. However, many developed country NDC’s could have been much more ambitious. The EU targeted a modest 40% GHG reduction by 2030, compared to 1990, besides increasing energy efficiency by 27% and the share of renewable energy by 27%. USA offered a 26-28% GHG reduction by 2025, but calculated from a more recent 2005 baseline. China’s NDC target identified 2030 as an approximate peaking date for its carbon emissions. This was regarded by several as an unambitious and conservative pledge, since even most Chinese experts believe its GHG emissions are in any case set to peak earlier, perhaps by 2025.

IPCC Special Report for 1.5°C (2018)

Political momentum for the IPCC Special Report for 1.5°C was generated by the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and the Least Developed Countries, to placate whom the 1.5°C target was incorporated in the Paris Agreement. Released on 8 October 2018, the Special Report for 1.5°C assesses the current state of scientific and technical knowledge on climate change, drawing on the research findings of 6,000+ freshly published scientific articles. It identifies possible pathways to cap global warming at 1.5°C and outlines their environmental and socio-economic impact. It highlighted that:

• Climate Change from human-induced causes is already underway.
• It is accelerating, affecting economies and livelihoods everywhere.
• We are already seeing its consequences, including more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice.
• Limiting warming to 1.5°C will involve unprecedented transitions.
• There are clear benefits in keeping warming to 1.5°C.
• If global warming is capped at 1.5°C, ten million fewer people would be exposed to the risk of sea level rise, compared to warming of 2°C.
• Even 1.5°C warming would negatively impact humanity, but the consequences of warming of 2°C would be far more damaging.

The Report indicates that less than twelve years remain upto 2030 (now eight years) to avoid potentially irreversible climate disruption. As a striking example of impending disaster, it pointed out that 70-90% of coral reefs across the world would perish if temperature rose 1.5°C; but with a 2°C rise, none would be left. It called for action not only by countries, but by state governments, cities, industry and business, etc, as limiting warming to 1.5°C would need an unprecedented pace and a transformational scale.

Katowice COP 24 (2018)

COP 24 was convened in Katowice, Poland, in December 2018, soon after the warnings contained in the IPCC Special Report for 1.5°C about the growing severity of the climate crisis had caught the world’s attention. COP 24 adopted the Katowice Rulebook, which ensures that all countries would be on the same page as regards transparency in reporting obligations. States also reiterated that they would undertake a "global stocktake” in 2023 to assess progress and biannually report on their individual progress in cutting GHG emissions from 2024 onwards.

Special UNGA Climate Action Summit (2019)

A Special UNGA Climate Action Summit was hosted in New York on 23 September 2019 to boost ambition and accelerate actions so as to reducing GHG emissions to net zero by 2050 by developing ambitious solutions in six areas: renewable energy; emission reductions; sustainable infrastructure; sustainable agriculture & management of forests and oceans; withstanding climate impacts; and investing in the green economy.

Glasgow COP 26 (2021); Glasgow Climate Pact

COP26 was convened in Glasgow in 2021. Parties were to enhance commitments towards mitigating climate change by the 'ratchet mechanism' every five years and it represented the first opportunity since the Paris Agreement of COP21 to do so as no COP was held in 2020 due to COVID-19. It adopted the Glasgow Climate Pact, the first climate deal to explicitly commit to reducing the use of coal. It included wording that encouraged more urgent GHG cuts by strengthening the 2030 targets in their NDCs to align with the Paris Agreement temperature goals.

What Lies Ahead

‘Climate Action Tracker’, an independent science-based assessment that tracks emission commitments of countries, has estimated that the aggregate impact of the full implementation by all countries of climate pledges contained in all NDCs put forward in the first round, will at best limit temperature increase to 2.7°C by the year 2100, compared to a heating of 3.6°C by 2100 projected to result from current policies without those pledges. Clearly, pledges made are grossly inadequate and NDCs would need to be substantially enhanced in future stocktaking reviews if global warming is to be capped at 2°C, let alone 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

GHG per capita emission excesses and human inaction when confronted by such excesses has brought us to the present state. Even at 1°C of warming we are staring at a climate emergency and it will only get worse in the absence of serious corrective action. We must pick up the pace to decarbonize the global economy or face serious consequences. This has led to aggressive activism by youth and NGOs supporting urgent and enhanced climate action. Greta Thunberg’s ‘Fridays for Future’ school strike initiative sparked protests by youth outraged over false hopes generated about the impact of NDCs agreed under the Paris Agreement. Protests by the NGO "Extinction Rebellion” are another manifestation of people feeling betrayed by and exerting pressure to urgently generate more effective climate action. UN Secretary-General António Guterres frankly acknowledged in a newspaper op-ed as far back as 15 March 2019 that his generation "failed to respond properly to the dramatic challenge of climate change” and "we are in a race for our lives, and we are losing. The window of opportunity is closing – we no longer have the luxury of time ….”

At the domestic level, India’s response to climate change must be guided by its national plans, programmes and priorities, not by the push and pull of international negotiations. In spite of the enormous task of eradicating poverty and ensuring food security, housing, and electricity to all, India is pursuing mitigation efforts that deliver early benefits while reducing GHG emissions. These include switching from conventional fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, by energy conservation and more efficient energy usage (e.g., via more fuel efficient vehicles, spread of Metro mass transport, widespread use of less energy consuming LED bulbs and home appliances, and deployment of roof-top solar systems), reducing energy wastage, as well as better urban planning and building design. It is also pursuing adaption efforts, e.g., by improving ecosystem resilience and helping local communities, to meet some climate change risks. Biodiversity loss is of special concern to India, a biodiversity rich country, given it has an economic cost, and could harm food security and human health. India has taken several steps for its conservation, including to minimize the impact of climate change on coral reefs and forest ecosystems.

For India, inclusive growth too is integral to an effective climate change policy and studies show that low carbon growth pathways are consistent with inclusive growth in India. India needs to undertake enhanced adaptation measures besides such mitigation efforts that restrict GHG emissions without compromising its development compulsions.

India’s NDC, announced in October 2015, envisages reduction in the emissions intensity of its GDP by 33-35% by 2030 from its 2005 level. It also foresees changing India’s share of non-fossil fuel in its total installed capacity from 30% in 2015 to about 40% by 2030. India also adopted an ambitious target of creating an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent through additional forest and tree cover by 2030. It shared that as per preliminary estimates over US$ 2.5 trillion would be required during 2015-2030 to implement India’s climate-related plans. Scaling up would involve even greater financial resources.

India was not a major GHG emitter when the UNFCCC was agreed to in 1992, but is now in the spotlight as, in gross volume terms, India now trails China and USA as the third-largest GHG emitter. Yet, India’s per capita GHG emissions remain a fraction of that of all major emitters. Even now, India’s historic and current levels of GHG emissions per capita place it last amongst all twenty G20 countries. India also has one of the lowest rates of energy intensity of GDP growth and believes it can achieve similar well-being as the developed world without indulging in reckless and wasteful consumption or follow a "peaking path” approach like China. It has in the past indicated that its per capita emissions would never exceed those of the developed countries, including their historical emissions.

In the context of the online G-20 Summit convened from 20-21 November 2020, ‘Climate Action Tracker’ rated India’s climate action NDC target as "2°C compatible”, indicating that India’s climate commitment for 2030 is regarded as a fair share of global effort based on its responsibility and capability. No G-20 country received a more favourable rating from CAT. Be that as it may, all countries would need to enhance their climate pledges in future stocktaking reviews.

Our Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, outlined five ambitious new climate targets at Glasgow COP26, viz., 500 GW non-fossil energy capacity by 2030; meeting 50% of India’s energy needs via renewable energy by 2030; reduction in India’s carbon emissions by 1 billion tonnes from now till 2030; reduction in the carbon intensity of the Indian economy to 45% by 2030; and India reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2070. These reflect a sharp move away from carbon and reassure that India will continue to be at the forefront of countries acting responsibly on climate concerns.

As required by Para 29 of the Glasgow Climate Pact, India conveyed an updated NDC to the UNFCCC Secretariat on August 23, 2022, emphasising that it is a step forward towards India’s long-term goal of reaching net-zero by 2070. By it, India’s NDC has been pragmatically enhanced to reduce the overall emissions intensity of its economy and considerably improve its energy efficiency. It does not bind it to any sector-specific mitigation action or obligation. Moreover, it sensibly derives from India’s national circumstances and envisages protecting vulnerable sectors and segments of our society, while pursuing a low carbon emission pathway en route to achieving the SDGs by 2030.

Two international Indian initiatives also need acknowledgement: (a) the ‘International Solar Alliance’ - jointly launched in 2015 by Prime Minister Modi and France’s President Macron - is working to make affordable solar energy available round the clock to all (b) the setting up of the ‘Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure’ announced by Prime Minister Modi at the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit, - a global partnership to promote resilience of infrastructure systems to climate and disaster risks.

Beyond GHG emission reduction, there are two additional approaches being seriously explored lately, which you need to be familiar with. The first can be broadly covered by the term "Climate Geo-engineering”; the second, explores ways to more effectively use ‘Nature’ in addressing climate concerns.

Climate Geo-engineering is a term used to loosely encompass deliberate, large-scale intervention in our planet’s ecosystem in order to counteract climate change. It can broadly be subdivided into two sets of techniques. The first seeks to remove carbon from the atmosphere and encompasses, in particular, Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) methods. CCUS technologies remove CO2 from the atmosphere, recycle the CO2 for utilisation and determine safe and permanent storage options. Another approach uses Solar Radiation Management (SRM) to cool the Earth. SRM does not affect the quantity of carbon in the atmosphere yet seeks to reduce global temperatures. So, it is not really a "solution”, but provides breathing space to undertake needed decarbonization. SRM is a cheaper and thus more attractive approach than further reducing GHG emissions or using CCUS methods, but it has huge and unclear potential risks associated with its impact on crops, weather conditions, drought, etc.

Most low-temperature pathways presented in the IPCC Special Report on 1.5 °C rely on a huge expansion of bio-energy use, with subsequent carbon capture and storage, or a massive afforestation programme, to extract atmospheric CO2. However, broad, commercial adoption of safe, underground CO2 storage is still some years away. Meanwhile, several private companies are green washing and avoiding fundamentally changing their businesses; they need to be held accountable. Also, carbon offsets have little meaning unless you can evidence the amount of carbon actually taken out of the air.

There are many scientific proponents of the view that using ‘Nature’ to tackle climate change should be more effectively pursued. It is argued that nature is itself the most effective tool to tackle climate change and protecting nature constitutes a ‘no regrets’ approach. Thus, tropical forests are extremely effective at storing carbon, yet nearly one million hectares are lost annually. Indeed, 11% of human GHG emissions arise from deforestation, which makes it comparable to emissions from all cars/trucks on Earth. Furthermore, 0.7% of the world’s forests are coastal mangroves and they store up to ten times as much carbon per hectare as tropical forests. Yet, nature-based solutions only receive 2% of all climate funding. Conserving ecosystems can sometimes be cheaper than resorting to human interventions. It is estimated that natural solutions like restoring degraded forests and stopping deforestation could create 80 million jobs globally, pull one billion people out of poverty and add US$ 2.3 trillion in productive growth. This would require an estimated annual expenditure of US$ 140​ billion, which sounds like a lot, but is under 0.1% of global GDP.

​​The rich, developed countries have presently fallen seriously behind in fulfilling their commitments on new and additional funding, technology transfer, and capacity building support to developing countries affected by climate disruption. It’s time they stepped up to the plate in line with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Developing countries are resource constrained and to bridge their resource gap beyond domestic funding, a large number of developing countries await promised new and additional financial flows from the developed world for implementing climate change mitigation/adaptation actions. Faster development of clean technologies and their transfer on preferential and concessional terms will be central to implementation of NDCs by most developing countries. In this context, developed countries should help in providing climate finance, in the transfer of environmentally sound technologies, and in capacity building. The developed countries non-fulfilment of their commitment to annually mobilise $100 billion climate finance by 2020 to support resource constrained developing countries has been most disappointing.

In conclusion, excessive anthropogenic GHG emissions and a deficient response by us when confronted by such excesses has brought us to the present situation. To tackle the climate emergency we must relentlessly decarbonize the global economy, but on the basis of principles of fairness, justice and equity. Climate action will come with huge costs and action plans must not result in winners and losers or worsen economic inequality; instead, we must seek a fair, just and inclusive transition that benefits everyone.

COVID-19 and the Russia-Ukraine conflict have further exacerbated the climate crisis as they have been harmful for the global economy, including many developing countries. The new international mantra to ‘build back better’ from COVID-19 is not really in evidence so far. Global recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic must lead us to a more sustainable, inclusive and resilient future – one that respects human rights, enhances climate action, strengthens biodiversity protection, addresses desertification, deforestation, land, water and air pollution, and puts the world on track to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. Since the Paris Agreement a shift to use of cleaner bunker fuel by ships and reducing GHG emissions from Aviation Turbine Fuel used by civilian aircraft, have been agreed upon under IMO and ICAO auspices respectively; but GHG emissions from the defence sector still remain outside consideration for restraining GHG emissions.

Meanwhile, contributions to the Green Climate Fund remain way below expectation. Unless the climate finance scenario radically improves and enhanced financial and technological cooperation is extended by the developed world, the prospects of our effectively tackling climate change at the global level remain rather bleak. We all have to pull together in the same direction to overcome the overlapping crises confronting our planet if we want to give the current generation an opportunity for a dignified life in a clean, safe, secure and healthy world, and pass it on to future generations. We now look to COP27, to be held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, from 6-18 November 2022, to move the process forward. In particular, the developing world awaits enhanced climate finance flows, technological cooperation and capacity building support.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions and our discussion.