THIRTY-EIGHT years ago, Indira Gandhi was the only Prime Minister to attend the historic UN Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972. Fifteen years later, when Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, Norway’s youngest woman Prime Minister, prepared the now famous Brundtland report — also called Our Common Future — she admits to having been influenced by Indira Gandhi’s commitment to the environment. Her report helped focus for the first time on the interdependence of nations — that they must follow a sustainable development path in order to survive. Brundtland — now a UN envoy on climate change — says that environmental concerns will have to be followed by decisive political action.

Q. You were in the forefront of warning the world against climate change and its consequences.A. Yes, indeed. The Brundtland report came out in 1987. For the first time, we were able to provide substantive evidence to warn the world against global warming. In 1988, at the climate conference in Toronto, I went a step further and called for a climate convention which was necessary to focus on environmental problems. Our gains were impressive, and in 1992, the world came together at Rio to sign the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and this is still the convention we are building on. This was followed by the biodiversity convention and five years later we had the Kyoto Protocol.Everyone is aware of the limitations of the Kyoto Protocol, but we would have been worse off had it not been there. We are moving slowly while emissions are rising relentlessly. Today, the human population is over 6.5 billion and economic expansion remains the prime goal of the world.Q. The US did not sign the Kyoto Protocol. What is its position today?A. The US amounts to 15 per cent of the total emission problem on the planet, but I believe the Copenhagen Accord has proved to be a positive movement. The Indian Prime Minister has spoken positively about it. It is, undoubtedly, a key part of a broader agreement. I must also point out that at the Copenhagen Summit, the 130 leaders assembled there did agree on the issue of forests. We urgently need to save our forests.Q. Why do you think the world did not see an agreement at Copenhagen?A. The distance between the different groups was much too great and countries arrived there with different agenda. China and India had already decided not to give any legally-binding international commitment. This is at the heart of the problem.Emissions of the European Union countries are going down by 30 per cent. Even if they were to go down to zero, the emissions of developing nations are going up. The result is that the world is suffocating and this is at the heart of the drama.Q. The US has been pretty obdurate in its position.A. The US is committed to reduce its emissions by 17 per cent by 2030. Add that to the 30 per cent EU reductions. The question is that China and India will be filling up that space. The emerging countries need to curb their emissions also. These governments are talking of common, but differentiated responsibility. This is what the Indian Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, has also reiterated. The issue is to be able to come up with concrete commitments. Today, no country is without responsibility on this issue. No one can say I am excluded. India cannot say we are not going to take cuts.Q. Why does Europe not take the lead on this?A. Europe has tried to take the lead, but I believe new ideas must come up to solve this problem.Q. The West has a historical responsibility on this issue.A. The historical situation is clear to all. I stated this very clearly in my report in 1987. The last century is over and we now need to look ahead for the next 50 years. It is not enough to look back because today it is a question of trying to save the world from calamity.Q. How can this come about?A. The world will have to change its pattern of use of energy. That means the burden of change will have to be shared by the developing and the developed nations.Q. The economist Jeffrey Sachs said at the summit that there was little possibility to get the US to make an international commitment on emission cuts.A. Yes, I heard that too. I see little possibility of the US coming up with any international commitment. That is because of their political system. But I urge world leaders that they should not wait for the US and China to announce emission cuts. The rest of the world cannot stand still. The US has a strange political system which is why I have always supported parliamentary systems of democracy where a majority propose a plan of action and, if they get 50 per cent support, it goes through. In the US Senate, a minority can stop a political development. This happens there everyday. In a way, it was never a very effective system and that is why they are always getting into trouble.Q. How has Norway dealt with this issue? A. In 1989, when we had elections in Norway, environment was high on the agenda. In 1990, my government instituted a carbon dioxide tax. I had all the oil-producing countries of the world lining up against me. I explained there was no other way to deal with climate change than to do something about the price of carbon. You have to do things that hurt. The future is going to be a low-carbon emission one. The saving grace is that science and technology have progressed. Today, what we used to call waste is being seen as a political resource which can be removed. New ways are being found to clean up acid rain. The whole technology of waste has moved ahead.

Rashme Sehgal