ABSTRACT
The science and economics of climate change is by now well known. However, no harm will be done by briefly recounting them. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) tend to concentrate in the upper echelons of the atmosphere and impede outgoing infrared radiation from the earth’s surface, resulting in a gradual rise of the earth’s average surface temperature. This phenomenon is, popularly, known as global warming, although this is only one of the varied climate change effects of the increased average temperature of the earth. On the other hand, the basic economics of climate change is that it is a major global disexternality ensuing from an economic activity conducted at the local level. This asymmetry in turn opens up the possibility of a divorce between the causers (or contributors) and the victims of climate change. While the two groups are not always mutually exclusive, in a broad categorization in the real world the former is associated with the developed countries (Annex B countries1) and the latter with the developing countries (Non-Annex B countries). For more than a century, Annex B countries have emitted beyond the absorptive capacity of the atmosphere. On the other hand, non-Annex B countries, which include the South Asian countries, have historically been and continue to be low emitters. The latter, however, are extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. In other words, even though the developed countries have been primarily instrumental in causing climate change, it is the developing countries that are poised to bear the brunt of it. Naturally then it has become customary to refer to the developed and developing countries respectively as the causers and the victims of climate change. In a systematic assessment of countries’ causal contributions to climate change – measured as
historical (since 1890) contributions of GHGs by the various countries – made by Müller et al. (2009), the developed countries (61.6 per cent) plus China (10.8 per cent) plus the OPEC (7.3 per cent) are found to contribute 80 per cent while the developing countries’ share is 14 per cent of the total historical emissions. The only South Asian country to figure significantly within the developing countries’ group is India with only 3.9 per cent of the aggregate historic emissions. Furthermore, Müller et al. (2009) devise a ‘strict moral responsibility’ measure for climate change using a methodology which combines the causal contribution shares and a per capita allocation of a global total of ‘harmless’ emissions. According to this measure, the strict moral responsibility for climate change of the group of developed countries (69.9 per cent) plus
China (6.4 per cent) plus the OPEC (7.4 per cent) is around 84 per cent while that of the developing countries is only 10 per cent. Specifically, India’s strict moral responsibility turns out to be a mere 0.3 per cent. No other South Asian country has any moral responsibility. On the other hand, the vulnerability to climate change is rather extreme for the South Asian
countries. The developmental and poverty eradication challenges of the South Asian countries have been hugely compounded by the advent of global warming (Kelkar and Bhadwal, 2007). This is because agriculture remains the major source of livelihood for the vast majority of the population in almost all of the South Asian countries, and it is agricultural productivity that seems to be directly hit by the increasingly random and, therefore, unpredictably abrupt variations in climate patterns. In India, roughly 65 per cent of the national labour force is engaged in agriculture and allied activities, which account for approximately 19 per cent of the GDP. GDP contribution shares and labour force shares employed in agriculture and related activities in other South Asian countries are of the same orders of magnitude as that of India, with the exception of Nepal, where agricultural dependence in terms of both GDP and workforce employed is much higher. Cultivation in India and Pakistan mostly happens in arid and semi-arid lands. Water is
already scarce on such lands. Decrease in rainfall will mean more severe droughts. On the other hand, increased precipitation intensity during the summer monsoon can increase the likelihood of flood. All this will have a detrimental impact on crop yields. Moreover, a rise in mean temperature caused by climate change is likely to further aggravate the adverse impact on wheat yields in India (GOI, 2004; Kavi Kumar and Parikh, 2001) and Pakistan (Sultana and Ali, 2006). Rice harvests in India may also be adversely affected by undesirable climate changes due to brown clouds and greenhouse gases (Auffhammer et al., 2006). Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have low-lying coastal areas. Higher intensity of tropical cyclones
and a rise in the sea level are likely to cause major loss of life and properties in these areas. Over and above, the rise in mean temperature will take its toll on rice yields in Bangladesh (Karim et al., 1996) and Sri Lanka (MENR, 2000). For Sri Lanka, there is an expectation of a decline in tea yield as well (Wijertane, 1996). In the Maldives, coastal infrastructure is in jeopardy due to the expected rise in sea level and
occurrence of extreme events, such as successive droughts and deluges. The Maldives are less than one metre above mean sea level. Because they are so low-lying, the islands of the Maldives are defenceless against inundation and beach erosion. Approximately, 50 per cent of all inhabited islands and 45 per cent of tourist resorts are threatened with beach erosion, which may well situate the Maldivian economy on the road to collapse. Bhutan and Nepal have fragile mountainous ecosystems. In these countries, therefore, livelihoods
and economic activities are vitally linked to the natural resource base, which is highly susceptible to climate change. Agriculture and aquaculture here are liable to be stressed by alternating floods and water shortages, rise in sea level and increased exposure to cyclones much more than in other countries of South Asia. Bhutan is also likely to face landslides more frequently. Apart from the loss to life and property, this would leave behind sediments in agricultural lands or in canals and streams, thereby adversely affecting agricultural productivity. Thiss account of the deleterious impact of climate change on farm productivity and livelihoods
of the masses suggests that the poverty eradication goals of South Asia may get seriously thwarted. More generally, the very developmental prospects of these countries are likely to be undermined by the myriad impacts of climate change, such as enhanced risks to human health leading to a languid labour force, migration away from coastal cities to overcrowded mainland urban centres, decline in water availability, increased possibilities of natural disasters and changes in forest patterns (Kelkar and Bhadwal, 2007).
