Re: Global Warming, Indian Views: Sid Harth
chhotemianinshallah
7 Dec 2009, 0437 hrs IST, ET Bureau
NEW DELHI: BJP on Sunday used the unease among a section of the
country’s climate change negotiators over the government’s unilateral
announcement to cut its emission intensity to ram in the point that
India’s reflexes on the issue were being guided by external pressures,
and not by national interest.
“A 25% unilateral reduction in emission intensity by 2020 involves
huge costs. What have the developed countries done in reciprocation.
Obviously, every Indian, including our negotiators, are unhappy, but
the US President is pleased because India has come on board,’’ Leader
of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley, who’s spearheading
the BJP’s attack on the government’s decision to shift the goalpost on
climate change, told newspersons on Sunday.
The Opposition leader asked the government to come clean on who will
bear the cost of these unilateral emission intensity cuts. He also
questioned the government on the issue of per capita principle on
climate change.
“Has the government of India abandoned the per capita principle, which
implies that every Indian has as much share in the carbon space as an
American does?’’ Mr Jaitley sought to know.
The BJP leader also held Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s delayed
decision to go to Copenhagen to attend the climate change summit as
another evidence of the government succumbing to the US pressure on
the subject. The statement issued by the White House over the weekend
that India had, by announcing the emission intensity cuts, acted in
tandem with the US and China had only served to add more substance to
this charge.
``The prime minister has now decided to go to Copenhagen, which was
earlier not a part of his schedule. It was the developed countries
which have forced to him to change his stance. In the last two weeks,
they’ve stepped up their pressure on the prime minister to undertake
the trip to the Danish Capital,’’ Mr Jaitley alleged.
In the process, he maintained, Mr Singh would have skipped the month-
long winter session of Parliament ``thrice’’. The prime minister had
visited the US and Trinidad and Tobago in the last week of November,
and is currently on a visit to Russia.
While accusing the Manmohan Singh government of wilting under American
pressure on climate change, the BJP leader clarified that his party
too wanted good relations with the US, but this should not be ``one-
sided.’’
``While we all support close ties between India and the US, it cannot
be a one-sided relationship, where we succumb to all pressures,” Mr
Jaitley said.
Expressing concern at the steps announced by environment minister
Jairam Ramesh ahead of the Copenhagen summit, the BJP leader contended
that the nation is ``getting increasingly convinced that the
government is not following an independent policy on climate
change.’’
``There is not only a complete reversal of India’s position, but the
government of India is also rubbishing the position of all earlier
governments, including the position taken for five years by the UPA
during its previous stint,’’ Mr Jaitley said.
The BJP leader questioned the unilateral announcement on emission
intensity cuts, maintaining that it was bad strategy. ``It is bad
strategy on the eve of any multilateral negotiations to unveil a
unilateral stance without waiting for the developed countries to
reveal their cards. It is India’s experience in various international
negotiations, including the WTO, that unilateral concessions become
the starting point in India’s negotiations. Mr Ramesh’s announcement
has weakened India’s negotiating position,’’ Mr Jaitley argued.
...and I am Sid Harth
chhotemianinshallah
7 Dec 2009, 0325 hrs IST, ET Bureau
NEW DELHI: With a 'rebellion' by its Copenhagen negotiators rendering
the government vulnerable to attack from the domestic constituency,
environment minister Jairam Ramesh on Sunday was forced to step in to
douse the fire with a promise that there would be no change in India’s
red marks at the climate change talks.
Two key Indian negotiators, Chandrasekhar Dasgupta and Pradipto Ghosh,
had raised the banner of revolt against the government’s ‘shift’ in
the negotiation position, prompting the government to convene a
meeting with them on Sunday morning.
The negotiators sought clarifications on issues such as the scope of
monitoring, review and verification of actions undertaken through
domestic finance and technology, the status of the assurances given to
Parliament on the reduction in emission intensity, and India’s
commitment to the equal per capita emission basis as a plank for
negotiations.
“We met to discuss negotiation nitty-gritty and other issues relating
to reciprocity from developed countries for our unilateral
announcements on emission intensity, equal per capita emission,
national communications,” Mr Ramesh said. The minister also assured
that both, Mr Dasgupta and Mr Ghosh, were on board. Stating that all
outstanding issues have been resolved, Mr Ramesh said: “Mr Ghosh is
scheduled to leave on Tuesday and Mr Dasgupta will leave on Wednesday.
Our negotiating team, headed by Shyam Saran, is already in
Copenhagen.”
On his part, Mr Dasgupta said he has been assured that there won’t be
any radical change in our negotiating positions. “I hold the minister
in high esteem. On the basis of certain assurances offered by him, I
now plan to fly to Copenhagen in the next few days, to assist our
delegation in whatever way I can under the circumstances,” he said.
Both negotiators stressed that a “full clarification” had been given
on all issues, and that there was now a “unified understanding in the
negotiating team”. Mr Ghosh said that he, along with the rest of the
team, would “negotiate from the official brief”.
Elucidating on the apprehensions that led him to delay his departure,
Mr Dasgupta said his main concern was that “we have been offering
unilateral concessions without obtaining any reciprocity”.
He added, “My other concern is over elements of the interview (by Mr
Ramesh in a Delhi newspaper) which seem to water down the prime
minister’s per capita approach, Mr Singh’s position on technology
transfer and IPR, and our rejection of international verification, or
review, of our domestically-funded mitigation actions”. Referring to
the verification of domestically-funded actions, Mr Dasgupta said the
minister had reiterated in Parliament that this was “a non-negotiable
element”.
Of particular concern was the doubt over the official position on
international verification of domestically-funded actions. On its
importance, Mr Dasgupta said: “Unlike many other international
agreements, the climate change convention doesn’t require reviews or
any other type of consultations for domestic actions of developing
countries.”
chhotemianinshallah
Copenhagen needs a strategic response
5 Dec 2009, 0151 hrs IST, Mukul Sanwal,
Print EMail Discuss Share Save Comment Single page view
Text:
Environment minister Jairam Ramesh got it right when he said that we
can no longer go on saying no in the climate negotiations. However,
the
government will get it only half right by agreeing to voluntary
emission cuts in terms of reducing the carbon intensity of growth. The
National Action Plan on Climate Change focuses on demand-side energy
management, and not on decarbonising energy.
Copenhagen should not be seen in terms of responding to a perceived
sense of isolation, but rather in terms of an opportunity to lay out
our own unique perspective to the issue. We must actively shape the
emerging shared vision and global goal for dealing with climate
change.
While the emphasis in developed countries is on the carbon market for
reducing costs, the preferred option for developing countries is
active industrial and agriculture policies to impact on the activities
that generate emissions and develop mechanisms for transfer of
technology, that do not depend on carbon pricing. Recent analyses also
conclude that market-based mechanisms will not drive innovation at the
pace or scale required to prepare the world for longer-term, deeper
emission reductions. Seeing everything in terms of carbon
oversimplifies a complex situation.
For example, recent analysis suggests that mitigation costs for the
developed countries for the most optimistic 17% emissions reduction
would not exceed 0.01-0.05% of GDP. This is insignificant compared to
a 42% increase in GDP that is assumed between now and 2020 for these
countries. At the same time, with fairly lenient targets, the carbon
prices would remain low and developing countries would not benefit
from offsets, which are also being considered as essential in reducing
costs.
The approach adopted by China and India for sustainable development,
on the other hand, has taken the first steps for an alternate policy
framework. Their focus on activities that generate global change,
placing resource conservation, environmental protection and economic
development on equal footing is showing good progress in making real
reductions in emissions.
The 11th Five-Year Plan of China (2006-10) has set a target to reduce
energy use per unit of GDP by 20% by 2010 compared to 2005. China has
more efficient coal-fired plants than the US and is becoming the major
world market for such plants, as well as for renewable energy. On
World Environment Day, June 5, 2009, China issued a nationwide call
for a “low carbon lifestyle”.
...and I am Sid harth
chhotemianinshallah
7 Dec 2009, 0332 hrs IST, ET Bureau
India’s negotiating position at the Copenhagen summit on climate
change that starts today, as outlined by environment minister Jairam
Ramesh in Parliament, is fundamentally sound. India will voluntarily
offer to slash the average amount of greenhouse-gas emissions required
to produce one unit of economic output by 20-25% by 2020, from the
2005 levels.
Such voluntary cuts in emission intensity have been offered by four
major developing countries acting in concert at Copenhagen: Brazil,
South Africa, India and China, who form a BASIC group. Such offers of
voluntary measures to reduce the impact of their inevitable and
desirable growth on the climate form a strategy far superior to
sticking mulishly to an earlier stand that a country like India, with
a very low level of per-capita emissions, need not do anything, and
that the burden of arresting/ reversing climate change should fall
exclusively on the present-day developed countries whose emissions
over the last couple of centuries have brought things to their current
pass.
Cutting emission intensity as promised has triple advantages. One, it
is entirely doable — in fact, there are some indications that India
can cut emission intensity much more without changing the current pace
of adopting energy efficiency and cleaner technologies.
Two, it is entirely in India’s domestic interest, on non-climate
counts as well, to make our growth more energy-efficient and
environment-friendly. Three, it turns the atmosphere at the climate
negotiations far more favourable for reaching an accord, as compared
to a stand that essentially says that our past record has been so good
that we refuse to do anything to save the climate now.
The BASIC group is also asking for funds and technology transfer from
the developed countries to implement abatement/mitigation measures.
This is how it should be. Growth that hurts the environment is also
growth that hurts the poor, who are most vulnerable to pollution and
have the least capacity to remedy its impact on their health. To argue
that India should continue to grow without concern for pollution and
climate change is to worsen the lot of the poor even as the rich grow
richer, without making an extra effort to reduce the damage they cause
to the environment while making their riches.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Basically-right/articleshow/5309176.cms
chhotemianinshallah
The Indian Express
Posted: Monday , Dec 07, 2009 at 0145 hrs
After much will-he-won’t-he suspense, it turns out that Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh will attend the final stages of the Copenhagen summit
which starts today. Barack Obama and Wen Jiabao have also confirmed
their attendance. Why does their presence matter so crucially?
Because it has been understood for a while now that Copenhagen will
not throw up a “legally binding” clincher; thus, the best that can be
hoped for is an agreement on a roadmap to a legally binding agreement
at some unspecified future point, probably next year. In other words,
Copenhagen is expected to carve out a never-before international
“political agreement” — and for such an agreement to carry any weight
in the world, it must be solidly backed up by important heads of
state.
Copenhagen — or more precisely, COP15 (the 15th Conference of
Parties), attended by 193 nations — is likely to be a long and arduous
haul. Starting today with negotiators’ meetings, and then moving on to
ministerial-level discussions, it will be capped by the world leaders
meeting on December 18. Over the course of the summit, there is likely
to be much friction as different nations strike off each other to get
the best deal domestically. However, they must remember that public
opinion will watch for the outcome. This should not be an arena where
countries clash with cardboard swords to impress the folks back home —
it must be undertaken with the awareness that coming to a common,
consensual workplan is absolutely vital. Unlike trade talks, much
more stagey, and where one dramatic exit doesn’t really scupper global
economic integration, the Copenhagen climate summit is a much more
sensitive, delicate affair. It tests the very possibility of
international collaboration around a contentious and difficult set of
measures that are nonetheless imperative to our security and survival.
So while walking out in a huff might be emotionally satisfying, India
must be extremely careful in how it deploys that threat.
The Lok Sabha debate showed how political opinion here has begun to
coalesce around climate action and India’s responsibilities. Our
negotiators must translate all that parliamentary support offered to
the government into a meaningful agreement that we can all live with.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/agreeing-to-agree/550763/0
bademiyansubhanallah
Agencies
Posted: Monday , Dec 07, 2009 at 1302 hrs
New Delhi:
BJP staged a walkout stating that it was dissatisfied over the reply
by Jairam Ramesh.
Government on Monday said it will not compromise India's interest at
the Copenhagen climate change summit, but a dissatisfied opposition
walked out in the Rajya Sabha.
"There is no dilution in our stand...There is simply no compromise on
India's national interest," Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said
during Zero Hour.
However, almost the entire opposition led by BJP staged a walkout
stating that it was dissatisfied over the reply by the minister, who
is leaving for the summit on Thursday. Ramesh described the walkout as
‘pre-planned’.
Leader of Opposition Arun Jaitley said that by announcing unilateral
emission intensity cut by 20-25 per cent by 2020, India was following
a ‘bad strategy’.
He said the government was ‘totally altering’ its stand that India
would not accept any legally binding cuts and would strictly follow
the per capita cut principle.
CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury, who would be part of the Parliamentary
delegation for the summit, accused the government of coming under the
US pressure.
He said even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's participation was under
pressure from Washington which was evident from the White House
statement.
However, Ramesh rejected the charge, saying, "This was not done under
any foreign pressure."
About 193 countries are participating in the summit that began today
to reach an accord to cut global emissions
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/no-compromise-on-indias-interest-at-copenhagen-govt/550990/
bademiyansubhanallah
Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of
speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because
humanity faces a profound emergency. Unless we combine to take
decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it
our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent
for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past
14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is
melting, and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a
foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no
longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got
left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world’s response has been
feeble and half-hearted.
Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that
will endure for all time, and our prospects of taming it will be
determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the
192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into
dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the
greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight
between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west.
Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone. The
science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take
steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require
global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years.
A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect
to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into
desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of
people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea.
Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished
treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of
President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US
obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of
American domestic politics, for the President cannot fully commit to
the action required until the US Congress has done so. But the
politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of
a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning
it into a treaty. Next June’s UN climate meeting in Bonn should be
their deadline. As one negotiator put it: “We can go into extra time
but we can’t afford a replay.”
At the deal’s heart must be a settlement between the rich world and
the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate
change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious
resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before
the mercury rises to dangerous levels. Rich nations like to point to
the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing
giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far.
But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon
in the atmosphere — three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since
1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit
to deep cuts which will reduce its emissions within a decade to very
substantially less than its 1990 level. Developing countries can point
out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the
poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will
increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful
and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what
some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the
world’s biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important
steps in the right direction.
Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into
its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate
change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically
without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty
must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair
rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of
“exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more
equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and
those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed
on individual developed countries should take into account their
ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer
than “old Europe,” must not suffer more than their richer partners.
The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill
for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the
consequences of doing nothing. Many of us, particularly in the
developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of
flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to
a close. We will have to shop, eat, and travel more intelligently. We
will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it. But the
shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more
opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognised
that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs, and better
quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for
the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than
producing electricity from fossil fuels. Kicking our carbon habit
within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and
innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man
on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and
competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative
effort to achieve collective salvation.
Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over
pessimism, of vision over shortsightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln
called “the better angels of our nature.” It is in that spirit that 56
newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If
we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree
on what must be done then surely our leaders can too. The politicians
in Copenhagen have the power to shape history’s judgment on this
generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid
that saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them
to make the right choice.
http://www.hindu.com/2009/12/07/stories/2009120757400100.htm
bademiyansubhanallah
Aarti Dhar
G-77 and China present BASIC draft at Copenhagen, saying it should be
the basis of negotiations
India has said it will be "flexible" at the climate meet without
compromising its national interests
"Developed nations shoulder greater responsibility for carbon cuts"
NEW DELHI: The draft proposal prepared by the host nation Denmark for
the climate change summit starting on Monday removes the distinction
between the developed and the developing countries and will be
disastrous for India and other developing countries.
Developing countries have maintained that given the fact that
emissions from industrialising developed nations over the last century
have been the primary cause of global warming, they should shoulder
greater responsibility for carbon cuts.
G-77 and China on Sunday formally presented the BASIC draft - mooted
by China and supported by Brazil, South Africa and India - at
Copenhagen and said it should be the basis of negotiations. The draft
is aimed at countering the Danish proposal and recommends extension of
the 15th meeting of the Conference of Parties and establishment of a
mechanism for technology development and transfer to developing
countries.
India joined the U.S. and China in announcing voluntary emission
intensity cuts last week with Minister of State (Independent Charge)
for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh pronouncing a 20-25 per cent
target reduction of the country's carbon emission intensity by 2025.
India has said it will be "flexible" at the climate meet, while
ensuring that its national interests are not affected, but reiterated
that it will not accept any legally-binding emission cuts.
While the U.S. has made a proposal to cut its carbon emissions by 17
per cent, China has announced a target of carbon emission intensity
reduction of 40-45 per cent. Carbon intensity is the volume of
emission proportionate to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in Kyoto in 1997, sets legally binding
targets for developed countries to reduce emissions - a major feature
of the pact. These amount to cuts of an average 5 per cent below the
1990 levels by 2012.
Prior to the Kyoto Protocol, the United Nation Framework Convention on
Climate Change was adopted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, but no mandatory
limits on emissions were set.
http://www.hindu.com/2009/12/07/stories/2009120766661000.htm
chhotemianinshallah
Jeremy Carl
Mon, Dec 7 05:28 AM
Sometimes in diplomacy what is not announced is more revealing than
what is. Such is certainly the case in India's recent climate and
energy negotiations with the US, as both countries prepare to head to
global climate talks in Copenhagen. The occasion of Manmohan Singh's
state visit to the US brought the announcement of a flurry of energy
and climate-related initiatives. These initiatives were a combination
of substance and political theatre, with potentially important
initiatives on environmental and regulatory capacity-building and
technology partnerships buried under a deep layer of bureaucratic
niceties.
What was more noticed was what was not announced: any agreement for
India to have a binding target for CO2 emissions reductions, something
US and European environmentalists have long claimed is necessary as
part of a global effort to stave off severe climate change. And while
the Indian government has eventually announced a targeted reduction in
what is known as "emissions intensity", CO2 emissions per unit of GDP,
that wasn't a big stretch, given India's current annual efficiency
improvements. Furthermore, Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam
Ramesh has made it abundantly clear in Parliament that such targets
would be voluntary and not part of a binding international agreement.
With more than 60 world leaders in attendance, we can be assured that
Copenhagen will not end in public failure. But the better question is
whether the announced success in Copenhagen will have any practical
meaning other than determining that diplomats can spin a "success" out
of any actual events. Some Indian commentators have seemed to hope for
a "success" of that sort — fretting about India being outmanoeuvred on
the public stage by China and other developing countries that may be
able to strike a more cooperative posture.
While from a tactical standpoint, such concerns are understandable
(there is little reason for India to not commit to doing things it
would like to do anyway, such as developing more efficient power
plants or cars), from the perspective of actually taking leadership in
addressing the climate problem, they mean little. In some ways, India
is emulating the example of the US from the previous Kyoto climate
round: while the US certainly should have been more proactive and
engaged, at least the Americans had the integrity not to ratify an
agreement that they couldn't keep. Many other nations could not claim
that; they either missed their targets entirely, or resorted to bogus
accounting tricks to meet their goals.
That India is showing its seriousness by not making climate
commitments it won't live by should actually be seen as a mature and
responsible decision, not an intransigent one. Does anyone think that
China won't walk away from its promise if they have trouble meeting
their emissions reduction goals?
As an alternative to the hot air that is likely to come out of
Copenhagen, it is instructive to look at the potentially useful energy
and climate agreements the US and India did sign during the PM's
recent visit. The fact that clean energy was the second item listed
behind security issues in the joint communiqué announced by Singh and
Obama is clear evidence that both India and the US place a high
importance on this aspect of their relationship.
India and the US announced numerous programmes, from the joint
deployment of solar electricity in Indian cities to the strengthening
of India's environmental regulatory and monitoring capacity — which is
sure to be a critical step if India is to make serious and verifiable
long-term commitments to emissions reductions. Perhaps most important,
at least symbolically, was the announcement of joint scientific
R&D work for renewable energy technologies. The Indo-US Clean
Energy Research and Deployment Initiative, which promises joint
development of new energy technologies and the development of a joint
research centre with a public-private funding model, is one such
initiative.
Ultimately, despite the bluster of diplomats in Delhi, Washington or
Copenhagen, the solutions to the climate change problem must come
through a technological revolution in the world's energy
infrastructure. And it is here that India, with its burgeoning corps
of bright young engineers, could make the biggest impact on climate
change mitigation. Circumstances may not permit
India to lead the deal-making in Denmark, but if the Indian government
gets serious about turning more of India's brightest young minds
towards solving the clean energy problem, then India's contribution to
solving the climate change conundrum may be significant indeed.
The writer is a research fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute of
International Studies at Stanford University, where his work focuses
on India
http://in.news.yahoo.com/48/20091207/1241/top-better-left-unsaid.html
chhotemianinshallah
2009-12-07 15:40:00
Last Updated: 2009-12-07 15:46:02
New Delhi: There is no dilution in India's stance on climate change
and 25 percent reduction in emission intensity that New Delhi
announced ahead of the Copehnagen summit was purely voluntary, the
Rajya Sabha was informed Monday. This, however, did not satisfy the
opposition which walked out of the house alleging a sell out.
"There is no compromise on India's national interests. The 25-percent
reduction in emission intensity that we have announced is unilateral
and non-binding internationally. It will only strengthen our position
to demand more reductions from the West," Minister of State for
Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh said in the house during the
zero hour.
This did not satisfy Leader of Opposition Arun Jaitley, who had raised
the issue in the house.
"I am completely dissatisfied with the answer and I am walking out,"
he said.
chhotemianinshallah
Indian govt under fire in parliament over carbon pledge
2009-12-07 15:30:00
India's environment minister came under fire in parliament on Monday
for his pledge last week that the country would reduce its carbon
intensity by 20 to 25 percent by 2020, compared to 2005 levels.
Jairam Ramesh's announcement came ahead of the start of talks in
Copenhagen on a new global climate treaty and reportedly upset many of
the Indian negotiators.
"It is bad strategy on the part of the government of India, we have
erased our base line," said lawmaker Arun Jaitely, from the main
opposition Bharatiya Janata Party.
"We are in a state of turmoil," he said. "Our negotiators appear to be
sulking."
New Delhi had earlier refused to commit to any emission cuts, while
demanding financial aid from developed countries to help them cope
with the effects of climate change.
In parliament, Ramesh on Monday defended the new position, saying
India's national interest had not been compromised by the non-binding
commitment.
"There is no dilution of our stand," he said. "I want to reassure this
house that while stands do evolve over time ... there is a certain
basic code that we are not violating."
India was under pressure to make a gesture before the Copenhagen
conference started on Monday, in response to the world's top two
polluters, China and the United States, putting numbers on the table
last month.
Communist Party of India (Marxist) MP Brinda Karat slammed Ramesh,
saying that "on the eve of the summit, the minister has done a great
disservice by dividing the team that is going to Copenhagen."
Ramesh will head to the talks on Friday, with Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh attending on December 18 with other world leaders.
chhotemianinshallah
2009-12-07 15:17:57
Islamabad: The presence of the Indian army at Siachen is causing rapid
melting of the glacier, a report in Pakistani newspaper The Dawn said
on Monday.
Both Pakistan and India should take steps to ensure that the Himalayan
glaciers were not disturbed, said director-general of Pakistan
Meteorological Department Qamaruz Zaman Chaudhry, as quoted by the
newspaper.
According to Chaudhry, the presence of Indian army in the region was
causing rapid melting. Pakistan’s agriculture was dependent on
Himalayan glaciers and global warming and military presence could pose
risk to the country’s food security.
http://sify.com/news/pak-blames-indian-army-for-siachen-melting-news-features-jmhprVbajef.html
chhotemianinshallah
2009-12-07 13:20:00
Last Updated: 2009-12-07 15:03:02
New Delhi: Three growing powers - India, China and Brazil - have a
basic framework in place for negotiating cuts in greenhouse gas
emissions during the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen,
Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh said on
Monday.
'India, China and Brazil have a basic draft. I have a copy of the
basic draft... basic draft to form the negotiation,' Ramesh told the
Rajya Sabha.
bademiyansubhanallah
Nitin Sethi, TNN 8 December 2009, 12:46am IST
COPENHAGEN: The opening day of the meeting of 193 countries on climate
change at Copenhagen was meant to be an occasion for reinforcing
political rhetoric and niceties. But even before the meeting began,
dark news of cracks within the biggest bloc of developing countries --
G-77 plus China -- started showing up.
The G-77+China spokesperson told the gathered negotiators that the
developing countries were not at all happy with the ``common but
differentiated responsibilities principle'' being discarded. It is
also learnt that some member countries of the developing country bloc,
in internal parleys, have demanded that emerging economies also
undertake some form of commitments and get their actions scrutinised.
The signs of friction within this large and diverse group appeared
even as there was talk of the Association of Small Island States
(AOSIS) -- the group of nation-states that are most vulnerable to any
rise in sea levels caused by global warming -- preparing its own draft
of a political declaration at the end of the Copenhagen talks.
The four BASIC countries -- Brazil, South Africa, India and China --
had on Sunday shared their draft with the G-77 bloc hoping to get
their buy-in and finally table it before all the countries officially.
If the G-77 is able to come out with a single draft with the inputs of
all members, it would put tremendous pressure on developed countries
in the second half of the week when political-level talks begin. But
if AOSIS and other smaller groups put separate texts on the table,
G-77's bargaining position would be weakened, explained sources.
The BASIC Four's draft itself had come up, with China taking the lead,
as a reaction to host Denmark's proposal, which the emerging economies
had found contrary to the UN Convention and Climate Change (UNFCCC)
and the Bali Action Plan, which ensures the ``polluter pays
principle'' -- in other words, calls upon the developed West, which
has historically been the biggest polluter, to bear the bulk of
mitigation costs.
In order to get the backing of the more diverse G-77 group, the BASIC
Four had kept only the most basic and fundamentally agreed principles
in their text, hoping to convince the rest to sign on. The speculated
upon AOSIS draft, negotiators in the G-77+China block fear, by raising
indirect demands for commitments from large economies and scrutiny of
their actions, could create a cleft at a stage when they require a
united front and big numbers to put the developed countries on a
backfoot.
But sources said, the recent moves by the key players -- US, China,
India, Brazil and South Africa -- in what was seen in some quarters as
an early indication of the big guys cutting a deal outside Copenhagen,
had alienated the smaller economies in the G-77+China group. With the
declaration of a domestic target in Delhi, some partners are asking if
we have undermined formal negotiations at Copenhagen even before they
began. ``This creates a deficit of trust,'' said an Indian
negotiator.
``The tactic of our group is to ensure that the game is played in the
other group's half of the field. G-77+China would like to control the
negotiations from the start but a crack in the team will weaken its
defense,'' a G-77 negotiator from an African country -- himself a
football fanatic -- told TOI.
``A multilateral negotiation,'' he said, ``requires coordination.
Those who are perceived as leaders need to act with greater care.''
Another recent development has been worrying the G-77+China block. The
Europeans, especially the UK, have been at the forefront of diplomatic
maneuvers to carve out a separate voice of small vulnerable countries
such as Bangladesh and Maldives which would, in the name of strong
global action, put pressure on India and China to take commitments.
The UK government had recently part-funded and helped organize a
meeting of this group, called the ``Vulnerable 14'' countries, in
Maldives.
At the internal meet of the G-77+China block, Bangladesh and Maldives
have on some occasions taken up positions that would make the
Europeans happy, sources in the grouping told TOI.
bademiyansubhanallah
NYT News Service 8 December 2009, 12:44am IST
COPENHAGEN: Just two years ago, a United Nations panel that
synthesizes the work of hundreds of climatologists around the world
called the evidence for global warming "unequivocal".
But as representatives of about 200 nations began talks on Monday in
Copenhagen on a new international climate accord, they were doing so
against a background of renewed attacks on the basic science of
climate change.
The debate, set off by the circulation of several thousand files and
email messages stolen from one of the world’s foremost climate
research institutes, has led some who oppose limits on greenhouse gas
emissions, and at least one influential country, Saudi Arabia, to
question the scientific basis for the Copenhagen talks.
The uproar has threatened to complicate a multiyear diplomatic effort
already ensnared in difficult political, technical and financial
disputes that have caused leaders to abandon hopes of hammering out a
binding international climate treaty this year.
In recent days, an array of scientists and policy makers have said
that nothing so far disclosed — the correspondence and documents
include references by prominent climate scientists to deleting
potentially embarrassing email messages, keeping papers by competing
scientists from publication and making adjustments in research data —
undercuts decades of peer-reviewed science.
Yet the intensity of the response highlights that skepticism about
global warming persists, even as many experts thought the battle over
the reality of human-driven climate change was finally behind them. On
dozens of websites and blogs, skeptics and foes of greenhouse gas
restrictions take daily aim at the scientific arguments for human-
driven climate change. The stolen material was quickly seized upon for
the questions it raised about the accessibility of data to outsiders
and whether some data had been manipulated.
bademiyansubhanallah
Morpheus reloaded
Rupa Sengupta7 December 2009, 12:00am IST
"Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural
equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans...move to
an area and you multiply...until every natural resource is consumed
and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area." Ergo,
the human race is a "virus". Thus spake Agent Smith, virtual villain
in The Matrix (1999), one of the slickest Hollywood sci-fi flicks ever
made. The Machine - artificial intelligence - keeps humanity's
suicidal folly in check, Smith derisively tells Morpheus, leader of
the Resistance against the Matrix's simulated world. Delicious irony,
for self-replicating humans who think they can beat everything from
Malthusian hypotheses to the climatic tipping point.
Protesting enslavement by virtual reality, we humans back Morpheus. We
cheer his Saviour-elect in battle galactica: Neo versus the Con.
Smith's comeuppance - his body electric becomes a light-emanating
cross - excites us especially. But why does this celluloid baddie
disturb us? Is it simply his ability to project the power of an
alternative reality as seductive as it's fake? Yet when Morpheus
famously tells Neo, "Welcome to the real world" outside the Matrix,
that human world's nothing but scorched Earth. 'Emancipation', then,
is awaking to war's detritus, remains of a fateful day when man
blacked out sun and sky. If Morpheus incarnates freedom as the courage
to 'see' a seemingly unchosen human predicament, shape-shifting Smith
complements him. Antithetical mirror, he reflects truths humanity
proactively circumvents.
Cut to the visiting alien in the shoddy sci-fi, The Day the Earth
Stood Still. He doesn't come in peace either: he's to rid Earth of
humans, a species on self-destruct mode. But we prefer him to the
implacable Smith. He's an entity with an 'open mind' about us. Seeing
how humans mourn loss and families feel love and other squishy
emotions, he's persuaded they need saving. Moral of the story: only at
world's end can dysfunctional humans redeem themselves. So, planetary
collateral damage notwithstanding, give the poor dolts a chance.
Many Copenhagen-bound personages today or WMD-disarmers tomorrow will
agree. We earthlings aren't outsiders circumstantially drawn into the
complex web of our strengths and failings. We're insiders, clinging to
life-belts from assumed dominance over nature to post-doomsday
biospheric bailouts. Besides, when our hubris breaches tolerable
levels - nuclear threat, ecological damage or a spot of genocide here
and there - we renew multilateral vows to stop walking down suicide
alley.
To what end? Whether you herald man's annihilation (Smith) or
redemption (Morpheus), either way you need unsentimental lucidity.
Whether you back the pessimist's take on humanity or the optimist
convert's, objectivity vis-a-vis human nature can only be had from
vantage points.
Extrapolate from the thought experiment of physicist Schrodinger,
whose famous cat has a 50-50 chance of life or death inside a sealed
box. Poisoning or survival being quantum probabilities, the feline's
fate is revealed only when the observing eye looks into the
experimental box to find reality collapsed into one state or another.
But though 'entangled' in the sense of forcing an outcome, the
dispassionate eye has no stake in the aliveness or deadness of the
thing observed. In contrast, the protagonist in the box, contingently
implicated, can't but live as if his hair's on fire, as the Buddhist
saying goes. Even if he wants to save the cat (read: humanity), he
can't but act as if his hair's on fire.
Lucidity demands distance. Rationally speaking, we can't but apprehend
the finite, transitional and - some say, anomalous - nature of the
human species. Given the additional evidence of its destructiveness,
it may even be argued that the only possible philosophical counter is
reduced stakeholding in humanity's fate even as we work for the best
outcome. Far from a moral cop out, that's an intellectual imperative
if we're to arrive at the courage to 'see', to contextualise human
life as one random pirouette in a larger cosmic dance. Our true
redemptive powers lie in recognising that we're part of a vast
universe of abiding generosity - and inhuman resilience. More, this
macrocosm preceded us, escapes us and will one day wink at our
passing. Realising this doesn't diminish us. To use Morpheus-speak, it
sets us free.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/subverse/Morpheus-reloaded/articleshow/5308640.cms
bademiyansubhanallah
'Science suggests that high-carbon growth kills itself'
2 December 2009, 12:01am IST
Johan Rockstrom is the executive director of Stockholm Environment
Institute (SEI) and Stockholm Resilience Centre. In a path-breaking
paper, he and a team of 28 scientists from around the world have
discussed how to deal with climate change. On a visit to India, he
tells Meenakshi Kumar that 'we are subsidising our living standards to
a level which the planet cannot afford':
What are the planetary boundaries that you and a team of 28 scientists
have identified in a recent research?
The nine boundaries identified include climate change, stratospheric
ozone, land use change, freshwater use, biological diversity, ocean
acidification, nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to the biosphere and
oceans, aerosol loading and chemical pollution. What the study
suggests is that three of these boundaries climate change, biological
diversity and nitrogen-phoshorus cycles may have already been
transgressed. Interestingly, these have a 'Three Musketeer' behaviour-
crossing one may threaten the safety levels of the others. So, it's
essential that we emphasise on sustainable development if we want to
save the planet.
You once said, 'we're running the planet like a subprime loan'. What
do you mean by that?
We could apply the same logic behind the recent financial crisis to
the present environmental challenge. The financial crisis happened
because we allowed housing loans way beyond the stock levels that were
available. Similarly, we are subsidising our living standards to a
level, which the planet cannot afford. This environmental problem is
not just about climate change, it's also about our forests, seas,
rivers, fishes, from which we are taking out at such a great speed to
subsidise our lives. We have to be careful about that.
Who is the bigger culprit the developed or the developing world?
It's 20 per cent of the world's countries, which are driving the
enormous risks to the planet. And these are the old industrialised
countries. The rest 80 per cent are keen to improve and that's quite
heartening. The developing countries are paying the biggest price. The
boomerang effect is hitting them disproportionately. What's amazing is
that the developing countries are not in a blame game even though they
have to pay the price. Imagine, some countries, like Maldives, have to
think of relocating its people to some other land because of climate
change. Yet, i don't find the Maldivian president Nasheed blaming the
developed world.
What role can India play in saving the planet?
Domestically, it should realise we are in it together. India should
move towards a low-carbon future. Science suggests that high-carbon
growth kills itself. India should invest in new technology. It should
be very tough on the world community in requesting lots of money for
climate adaptation.
bademiyansubhanallah
Hindustan Times
December 06, 2009
First Published: 23:33 IST(6/12/2009)
Last Updated: 23:35 IST(6/12/2009)
As Copenhagen gets off the ground, many across the world are finding
new meeting grounds. The Nepal cabinet has chosen the lofty elevation
of 18,192 feet in the Himalayan range to hold a meet — following the
opposite altitude that the Maldivian cabinet took when it dived to the
ocean floor for a conference last month. The purpose of taking such
high and low grounds is to draw attention to the perils of climate
change from melting glaciers (for Nepal) to rising sea levels (for the
Maldives). So, can we, as the big wheel around these parts, be left
out?
In India’s case, we’re spoilt for choice. If it’s mountains, well,
there is no dearth of high places. If forests are your fancy, what
better place than a meeting in Maoist-infested woods? If we want to
really highlight the environment, a Cabinet natter in the Union
Carbide factory could show the world that we are not put off by a bit
of toxic shock. Or move to the banks of the Yamuna where the river
foaming with chemicals languidly trickles past.
India should show the world that even with our environment falling
apart, we can cock a snook at those with their snouts in the trough at
Copenhagen. We editorial writers, too, are considering moving to a
vantage point from which to bring you our gems highlighting our
concerns that should be yours too. We’d prefer the Bahamas or
somewhere on the Mediterranean coast line.
chhotemianinshallah
Copenhagen: Amid concerns that many countries may be compelled to sign
an incomplete political document to get a deal at the U.N. climate
meet, top Indian official Shyam Saran on Wednesday said no “uncooked”
paper should be presented at its final leg as he left to brief the
leadership back home.
“All the G77 and China members have made it very clear that they are
not envisaging that there could be any kind of uncooked paper which
would go up to the heads of state and the government,” Mr. Saran told
journalists before leaving for New Delhi to brief Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh whom he will return with for the end of the conference.
“Whatever has to be adopted by the heads of state and government
should have been finalised before the 18th. So this is a very strong
message that has been conveyed,” said Mr. Saran.
Political document
There has been talk that if a legally binding agreement cannot be
reached, a political document could be signed by the leaders of 100
countries who arrive next week for the last week of the conference
including Prime Minister Singh, U.S. President Barack Obama and
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. — PTI
http://www.hindu.com/2009/12/10/stories/2009121052991400.htm
Sid Harth
Easing change in the climate will be costly
John M. Broder
In energy infrastructure alone, the transformational ambitions the
Copenhagen meet is expected to set will cost more than $10 trillion in
additional investment.
If negotiators reach an accord at the climate talks in Copenhagen it
will entail profound shifts in energy production, dislocations in how
and where people live, sweeping changes in agriculture and forestry
and the creation of complex new markets in global warming pollution
credits.
So what is all this going to cost?
The short answer is trillions of dollars over the next few decades. It
is a significant sum but a relatively small fraction of the world’s
total economic output. In energy infrastructure alone, the
transformational ambitions that delegates to the U.N. climate change
conference are expected to set in the coming days will cost more than
$10 trillion in additional investment from 2010 to 2030, according to
a new estimate from the International Energy Agency.
As scary as that number sounds, the agency said that the costs would
ramp up relatively slowly and be largely offset by economic benefits
in new jobs, improved lives, more secure energy supplies and a reduced
danger of climate catastrophe. Most of the investment will come from
private rather than public funds, the agency contends.
“People often ask about the costs,” said Kevin Parker, the global head
of Deutsche Bank Asset Management, who tracks climate policy for the
bank. “But the figures people tend to cite don’t take into account
conservation and efficiency measures that are easily available. And
they don’t look at the cost of inaction, which is the extinction of
the human race. Period.”
Whatever global warming’s effects — and most scientific projections
are less dire — there are also varying estimates of the economic costs
of failing to act to address the problem soon, some of them very
high.
In Copenhagen, some of the most intense and difficult discussions for
negotiators centre on any potential agreement’s near-term financial
arrangements. Some of the poorest and most vulnerable nations are
calling for a gigantic transfer of wealth from the industrialised
world to island nations and countries in Africa, Asia and Latin
America that are most likely to feel the ravages of a changing
climate.
Many poor nations are insisting that wealthier nations make deeper
cuts in their emissions and contribute more money to help the poorer
countries, a split that widened in Copenhagen on Tuesday as competing
documents of a potential agreement circulated.
Over time, some of the hundreds of billions of dollars the poorer
countries are demanding will begin to flow, as global carbon markets
become established and governments in rich countries begin to open the
spigot of public spending.
But in the meantime, the industrialised countries have proposed a
relatively modest fund of about $10 billion a year for each of the
next three or four years to help poorer countries adapt. Even that
effort remains the subject of conflict over which countries should
contribute how much, what body should oversee the spending and how to
determine which projects qualify for finance.
Short-term fund
President Barack Obama’s spokesman said last week that the President
supported a short-term fund to aid developing nations and that the
United States would pay “its fair share.” In many multilateral
efforts, the United States picks up a quarter to a third of the tab.
“Providing this assistance,” the White House statement said, “is not
only a humanitarian imperative — it’s an investment in our common
security, as no climate change accord can succeed if it does not help
all countries reduce their emissions.”
The money would be used to help developing nations reduce emissions by
switching to renewable energy sources like wind and solar and by
compensating landowners for not cutting down or burning forests, a
major source of carbon dioxide emissions. Other funds might be used be
used to adjust to effects of a changing climate like rising sea
levels, by building flood walls or relocating settlements to higher
ground.
Mr. Obama will travel to Copenhagen on December 18 to attend the final
day of the meeting, a sign that the White House believes that a far-
reaching accord, including deals on some of the sticky financial
issues, is possible.
“This is the question that is being posed in Copenhagen,” said Robert
N. Stavins, director of the environmental economics program at Harvard
University. “How much money do the developed countries have to put on
the table to bring developing countries into the conversation?”
Stavins said that the bulk of the money would have to come from
private investment because, he said, it was “inconceivable” that the
governments of the wealthy countries would come up with adequate
financing and also because private entities spent money much more
efficiently.
The climate and energy legislation passed by the House in June sets
aside roughly $8 billion a year for assistance to developing countries
by 2030, Stavins said. That figure, he suggested, represents the upper
limit of public financial support from the United States.
The perspective from the developing world is, not surprisingly,
somewhat different. Alvaro Umana Quesada, the leader of Costa Rica’s
climate delegation, said that it was important to the developing world
to have early resources and a predictable flow of long-term financing.
He said that the $10 billion in so-called quick start financing that
was now on the table was adequate but that such spending had to rise
to roughly $80 billion to as much as $150 billion a year by 2020.
“That is not very much compared to the size of the world economy or
the financial crisis bailouts,” he said. “There are great needs for
adaptation, where the small island nations are really at risk. Some of
them are one severe weather event away from disappearing.”
The European Union has endorsed a fund of that size; the United States
remains noncommittal. The Obama administration has asked for $1.2
billion in climate-related financing in the 2010 budget, far below the
needs being discussed at Copenhagen. But administration officials said
they would seek more money for international climate programs in
future years.
Project Catalyst
Perhaps the most detailed analysis of the financing needs of any
climate change agreement comes from Project Catalyst, an initiative of
the European Union and ClimateWorks, a foundation-supported policy
group based in San Francisco. The group’s work has helped shape the
negotiations in Copenhagen.
The group estimates that roughly $100 billion will be needed by 2020
to finance climate change programs in the developing world. About half
could come from the growing global market in carbon emissions credits
under a cap-and-trade system, which will be worth an estimated $2
trillion a year by 2020.
A cap-and-trade system is already operating in Europe and is under
consideration by Congress. Such a system sets a ceiling on the carbon
emissions of a given country or industry and allows trading of
pollution permits within the cap. As the overall limit on emissions
grows tighter, the price of pollution permits rises, creating a
sizable market in carbon credits.
Countries would grant some of the carbon market allowances directly to
energy and environmental programs in the developing world, with other
funds coming from a relatively small fee on each transaction. An
additional $10 billion to $20 billion would come from taxes on fuels
used in aviation and shipping. The rest, perhaps $25 billion to $35
billion, would be loans and grants from industrialised nations to
poorer countries, split roughly three ways among the United States,
the European Union and Canada, Japan and Australia. “The good news is
that everybody now is supporting our proposal for financing,” said
Umana, the Costa Rican delegate. “The bad news is that it’s happening
15 years too late. Without real money on the table, this will be a
disaster.”
— © 2009 The New York Times News Service
http://www.hindu.com/2009/12/10/stories/2009121051260900.htm
Sid Harth
COPENHAGEN: As delegates of 193 nations started tough negotiations on
a climate change deal here, India said it was not acting under
pressure to help work out a new agreement and that it would stick to
the fundamental elements of its position.
As for its decision to cut carbon emissions by 20-25 per cent by 2020,
Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Climate Change Shyam Saran said on
Tuesday the government was not acting under pressure from the
international community. “We should be aware that there are certain
fundamental elements that should not change. In terms of those
fundamental principles, the Indian stand has been quite consistent,”
he told PTI.
According to him, the fundamental elements are the principle of common
but differentiated responsibility; the legally binding quantitative
emission reduction target resting on the developed nations, not on the
developing nations; and mitigation action taken voluntarily by the
developing nations should be backed by financial resources and
technology. — PTI
http://www.hindu.com/2009/12/09/stories/2009120955041100.htm
Sid Harth
Agencies
Posted: Dec 10, 2009 at 2019 hrs IST
New Delhi Ahead of the Copenhagen Summit on climate change, Chinese
Premier Wen Jiabao on Thursday called up Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
to discuss a joint strategy for the conference where pressure is
mounting on major developing countries on greenhouse gas emission
reduction.
The two leaders exchanged views on the Copenhagen Climate Change
Conference, the Prime Minister's Office said.
"The two leaders agreed that the two sides would keep in touch with
each other in the run-up to this important Conference," it said.
The telephone call by Wen came in the backdrop of growing pressure on
India and China, along with other major emerging economies, by the
developed world to do more on emission cuts.
Both Singh and Wen will be attending the Summit to be held in the
Danish capital on December 17-18.
Wen called up Singh hours after negotiators of China and the US had a
heated exchange of words at Copenhagen.
The two Prime Ministers talked a day after a tiny Pacific island
nation Tuvalu seemed to cause a rift within the grouping of developing
nations as it pressed for discussions on legally-binding amendment to
the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
Sid Harth
Agencies
Posted: Dec 10, 2009 at 1750 hrs IST
Copenhagen With the US asking emerging economies to "wrap up" their
national emission reduction commitments into a global pact, India on
Thursday made it clear that it would not accept any internationally
binding agreement and that its climate change targets were not up for
review.
"We already have an agreement... we are quite prepared through our
national communications to report what we are doing, but that is for
the purpose of information only," Chandrashekar Dasgupta, senior
Indian negotiator at the climate change meet here, said.
"It is not subject to review, to verification, to re-negotiation, to
dialogue or any such thing. It is a nationally determined voluntary
target ... nothing less, nothing more," said Dasgupta, who has also
served as the Indian ambassador to China and European Union.
India has set a goal of 20 to 25 per cent reduction in carbon
intensity by 2020, compared to the 2005 levels.
Dasgupta's remarks came a day after US special envoy on climate
change, Todd Stern, said here that emerging countries like India,
China and South Africa would not be given a "pass" on carbon
emissions.
Stern said the developing countries had made "significant" proposals
but these would have to be "wrapped up" in a global agreement and not
captured in a "press release domestically."
He emphasised that putting such commitments in a legally binding
agreement was essential for "transparency" in the international
community, which could then gauge how the crisis was being resolved.
In the BASIC draft prepared by India, China, Brazil and South Africa,
countries taking nationally voluntary measures are obligated to report
on how these are going through national communications to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the implementation
of these targets are up for internal domestic review only.
Stern, the US climate change chief, also said that while China had
made significant commitments, the world would like to see more. He
urged Beijing to make "a real commitment," highlighting that while the
US emissions were flattening out and then going down, China's
emissions were steadily rising.
The US announced carbon emission cuts in the range of 17 per cent
below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 per cent by 2050.
China is aiming to reduce carbon intensity by 40 to 45 per cent by
2020, compared to 2005 levels.
The Indian side noted here that if the US was assessing the "adequacy"
of China's commitment, India could be up next for this assessment,
which negated the basic fact that these announced targets were
"voluntary" and could not be subjected to an adequacy check.
"What Todd Stern said yesterday about China's target of reduction in
emission intensity is very significant because it shows how an attempt
will be made to re-negotiate these upwards," Dasgupta said.
"The same thing could be done to our domestic voluntary target of
reducing carbon intensity by 20 to 25 per cent by 2020. If it is
subjected to considerations of so-called adequacy, attempts would be
made to force us to renegotiate this upwards," he said.
bademiyansubhanallah
Chetan Chauhan , Hindustan Times
Copenhagen, December 10, 2009
First Published: 16:32 IST(10/12/2009)
Last Updated: 16:51 IST(10/12/2009)
The Climate conference currently on at Copenhagen is in disarray with
none of the countries willing to budge from their States' stand.
So, when US President Barack Obama and Indian PM Manmohan Singh meet
on December 17 and 18, the big question is whether there would be any
strong political statement, leave along any binding agreement,
actually declared.
Most climate analysists have now started saying that a weak statement
would emerge at best. Hope for a conclusive stand on global climate
change now has just a week left.
SHARE4:40 am
The Mahatma's update to non-violence: sufficiency, not waste. And not
independence but interdependence is the solution to the problem facing
us. The world’s economic system is governed by a waste which has
created our pollution and constitutes a danger to the well-being of
all. A sustainable economy is required that supplies the needs of all
within the possibilities of the planet’s health. Everything, according
to Maitreya, is interconnected. Every atom is related to every other
particle throughout cosmos. Therefore, what happens in one aspect of
creation inevitably has an effect on another. Humanity is part of its
nature. Our atom is the atma.
SHARE3:39 am
Under the tuition of Maitreya and the Mahatma's, humanity will
understand that what we call God, nature, our environment, and what we
call humanity are one. We are past the age of 19th century
industrialization and its refinement in the 20th century, and we do
not know what lies ahead. There must be the creation of goods, but it
will take a completely form which will not despoil the planet.
Anupam3:35 am
It's all an eyewash and mere time pass guys..............They are
discussing climate change in air-conditioned halls after traveling in
Jumbo-jets..............!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Climate-conference-in-disarray/H1-Article1-485011.aspx
chhotemianinshallah
Aroon Purie
December 10, 2009
Call it the clash of civilisations but that is what the global summit
on climate change at Copenhagen is down to. Barely two days into the
conference the battle between the developed world and the developing
world is out in the open. Media leaks, backdoor meetings, broken
promises, accusations and counter-accusations are turning the summit
of 192 countries into a farce and raising the possibility that this
could be the costliest lost opportunity in history. Last year, we
invited former US vice-president Al Gore to speak at the INDIA TODAY
Conclave. He showed us his award-winning documentary, An Inconvenient
Truth, on the damage to our planet due to environmental degradation
and the enormity of the challenge and consequences of global warming.
Since then, every schoolchild now knows about the burning issues,
quite literally, surrounding climate change. The problem seems to be
that world leaders are sharply divided on critical issues.
Magazine's June 1992 cover
There have been almost three years of negotiations leading up to
Copenhagen and yet little seems to have been achieved to bring about
an equitable global agreement that can save the planet from
catastrophe. The so-called Umbrella Group, the rich countries, and the
biggest polluters are already going back on the Kyoto Protocol and the
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which makes a distinction
between the worst polluters and those who need the right to
development. The earlier agreements had worked out legally binding
cuts in greenhouse gas emissions for developed countries as well as
financial and technological aid to developing countries. None of that
is in evidence. Global emission levels have increased by 14.6 per cent
between 1990 and 2006. What is in evidence is an attempt by the
industrialised countries to gang up and commit less contribution and
action on their part while asking the developed world, in particular
India and China, to do more by way of emission reduction and targets.
They want all countries, rich or poor, to avoid legally binding
targets and pledge to take unilateral action domestically. A great
escape clause for the rich, disaster for the poorer nations.
What that has done is to identify the countries which are, as our
cover line says, Enemies of the Earth. Our cover story, put together
by Managing Editor Raj Chengappa, analyses the impact the looming
Copenhagen disaster could have on the world and our collective future.
We also look at the controversy surrounding India's stand and the
commitments made to Parliament by Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh.
India needs to be pro-active and demonstrate sincerity but without
falling into the trap set by the Umbrella Group. Ultimately, tackling
climate change is as much to do with government as it is to private
individuals and corporations. Our cover package also identifies Indian
entrepreneurs and citizens who are at the forefront of the
environmental battle.
Copenhagen represents a unique opportunity because the world is at a
tipping point as far as global warming is concerned. Failure would be
a catastrophic but like Shakespeare's tragedy, the unwelcome ghost at
the Prince of Denmark's banquet is haunting the summit they
optimistically labelled Hopenhagen.
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/74471/Editor%27s%20Note/From+the+editor-in-chief.html
bademiyansubhanallah
Like my grandmother, India is dignified and wise. But it must live in
the present and press the US and Europe on climate change
Leela Raina guardian.co.uk,
Friday 11 December 2009 15.00 GMT
India, where I come from, is beautiful, dignified and wise – just like
my grandmother, Nani ma (grandmother in Hindi). The insight and depth
of argument India brings to the table at the climate change conference
in Copenhagen is well researched and reflects its experience in
negotiating for years.
When India was young, developed countries were busy polluting the
world and India, now that it is coming of age, is calling for them to
take ambitious binding commitments as per their historical
responsibilities and to help India age gracefully by giving it
adequate finance and technology to grow, but on a low-carbon pathway.
India is the second most populous country in the world and releases
the fifth largest amount of emissions – yet I would argue that it has
almost negligible per capita emissions, as most of the population is
so poor. Poverty has actually grown over years, no doubt down to our
inability to correlate growth with better standards of living, which
is perhaps why we figure very low on the Human Development Index
compared to other developing economies. So it's somewhat unfair to
club us together with China – we're neither as old nor as polluting as
our next-door neighbour.
Despite all this India really has behaved more maturely than its age
might suggest. Recently in parliament, Jairam Ramesh, our environment
and forests minister, announced that the country would reduce the
intensity of carbon by 24% by 2020. India has also ratified the Kyoto
protocol and come out with a national action plan on climate change,
which has eight missions, one of which is among the most ambitious
solar projects, to generate about 20 gigawatts of power by 2022 and
another to enhance renewable energy sources.
But my grandmother always tells me how much money she has, but she'd
never allow me to search her purse. Similarly India will give biannual
reports to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) about its emissions reduction actions but will never allow
international scrutiny for its domestically funded actions. It would
also like all the finance offered to be additional and not as a
Christmas gift (read official development assistance).
Grandmothers also hold on to traditions. India has always put forward
its view that the text being negotiated in Copenhagen is not in line
with the convention (UNFCCC body principles) and the Bali Action Plan
which was enforced by parties at the landmark COP13 in Bali. It feels
that the text favours rich countries and most of the statements try to
move away from the principles that have been agreed upon.
This was again reflected in the recent tussle between the small island
states and the advanced developing economies on whether to start
discussions on amending the Kyoto protocol and bring in a new
protocol. Since the Kyoto protocol acknowledges the differences
between rich and poor nations with individually tailored
responsibilities (one of the only global negotiations where this holds
true), India will continue to defend it and block any move that would
enable the richer countries to buy time and commit less and the
conference to deviate from its core agenda.
I often remind my grandmother that you need to accept we live in a new
world. I urge the Indian government to see that it is putting so many
people's lives at risk, including many of my own friends from the
island nations. Could it not do anything to get a more ambitious deal?
Could it not push the US harder, take the mike and make a bold
statement that the European Union should show leadership?
I am sure that the reasons for it blocking Tuvalu's proposal to amend
the Kyoto protocol is not to escape from its own responsibilities but
to make sure that developed countries' overdue obligations are
committed first and attention from them is not diverted .
India wants to ensure a deal in Copenhagen. When your grandmother
needs to convince you, she would try to use all the ploys she could.
India needs to do the same. It should empower its stakeholders to
raise their voices and aggressively engage with the Indian media,
civil society, youth and indigenous communities to progressively put
pressure on the developed nations to deliver on their
responsibilities.
Be vocal and bold. That's all I ask.
jamesbro
11 Dec 2009, 3:15PM
Very nice, balanced article.
Recommend? (3)
SunnyAshawan
11 Dec 2009, 3:15PM
India must speak out at Copenhagen.Shhh, dont tell them we are also
there. Let us watch the whole monkey dance in peace.
As a citizen of this world, all I see is regional bias/ opputunistic
allies/ hypocrite partners/ illogical obstinancy/ hidden agendas/
monetary benefits/ reputations & egos/ doubts of validity. Why can we
not keep it simple, keep it real.
Recommend? (2)
AntonyIndia
11 Dec 2009, 3:21PM
C02 output in metric tons per capita per year: (2006)
India 1.3
China 4.6 (3.5 X more)
UK 9.4 (7.2 X more
Denmark 9.9 (7.6 more)
US 19 (14.6 X more)
India has plenty of problems; CO2 output is not one of them. Leave
this country in peace.
Recommend? (8)
JPSharma
11 Dec 2009, 3:43PM
India with its collective strength of the G-77 plus China should
display exemplary courage while calling the bluff of the industrially
developed countries led by the US, who seem to be hell bent to scuttle
any reasonable climate change accord at Copenhagen, that could mark an
improvement on the earlier Kyoto Protocol and the Bali action plan,
laying down a just and equitous principle of common but differentiated
obligations of carbon emission reduction for the nations with clearly
apportioning the historical responsibility for the carbon foot print
on earth, which the developed countries bloc want to escape from by
employing all the dirty tricks to drive a wedge among the developing
countries in order to prevent any consensus to emerge, as also to push
through their own selfish agenda on climate change without any real
commitment for.carbon emission cuts or the financial-technological
assistance to the developing and less developed countries. It is as if
they would like to have cake and eat it too.
Recommend? (1)
skinhead69
11 Dec 2009, 3:43PM
"Poverty has actually grown over years, no doubt down to our inability
to correlate growth with better standards of living"
Not exactly beautiful, dignified or wise^^^
Recommend? (9)
Betteryet
11 Dec 2009, 3:57PM
Dear Leela,
As a layman and with very little nowledge about the details of
Copenhagen Summit, these are my views.
When you dont know the solution, it is better to keep quite in a world
gathering.
The whole concept of monetary compensation by developed countries to
the poorer nations as compensation is flawed. The poor countries
should be compensated but practically looking,the monetary
compensation will not work mainly because of corrupt politicians in
all poor countries. So basically monetary compensation by developed
countries looks like a bribe to the leaders of the poorer countries to
sign wherever. But they are so far ahead in this idea that saying
anything is useless and we will be called spoilsports.
So how should the poorer countries be compensated for stopping the
development in order to save climate change? I dont know.
Also the Indian public at large looks at everything with suspicion.
What if all this Climate change shouts are not true and this is just a
new way by the developed country to bring economic restrictions on
developing countries for strategic financial benefits.
What if despite all our efforts, the Mother Nature decides to go its
own independent way anyway and laughs at our puny efforts.
What if after a few years the Climate change pundits of today claim
success of betterment, which would have happened even if we had done
nothing.
This may sound amazing but this is exactly how majority of Indians
actually think.
As I said in the begining of my comment. When you dont know the
solution, its better to keep quite. It is better to get your own house
in order. Its common sense to take care of the nature around you.
Recommend? (1)
SalamKushtia
11 Dec 2009, 4:05PM
Thanks Leela Raina to present a nice story. Bangladesh was also the
part of india in one time. So, this story consigned to our country
also. In addition I would like to say that 144 million people, is
exceedingly vulnerable to climate change. The frequency of floods,
droughts and cyclones has already increased and it,s common phenomenon
in Bangladesh. World leaders must consider to pledge money in
Bangladesh by legally binding agreement in Copenhagen so that the poor
and climate vulnerable country can get enough funds to fight global
warming.
Money would be spent on dredging the country's rivers to keep saline
sea waters at bay, building and raising embankments and roads,
constructing thousands of shelters and planting trees with improvement
of existing forest across the coast and hill tracks across the
country. A series of cyclone has been hit the coastal belt and world
largest mangrove forest Sundarbon, world knows it. In view of this
aspect I would like to draw a kind attention of world rich leaders to
invest in Bangladesh to development of environmentally damaged
infrastructure. Please consider Bangladesh. With best regards..Engr
Salam, Kushtia, Bangladesh.
Recommend? (4)
ludumdiaboli
11 Dec 2009, 4:14PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be
deleted. Constituent
11 Dec 2009, 4:23PM
A big part of the pollution is personal cars.
India could usefully set up a good public transport system with
trains, buses and minibuses according to usage, and discourage the use
of personal vehicles.
I know that Homer and Marge Simpson, in the cartoon series, have a car
each, but they are supposed to be stupid figures of fun.
A wise man learns from the mistakes of others, and does not copy
them.
Best of luck, India.
Recommend? (5)
gwillikers
11 Dec 2009, 4:23PM
Copengagen and any plan notrequiring all countries to cut emissions
will fail. A requirement for the industrialized nations, while China
has no requirements means one thing and one thing only: America opts
out. I'm not suggesting this makes anyone happy, or that its right,
although I believe it is. I am just stating that we're not destroying
our economy to benefit China. Any treaty along these lines isa waste
of everyone's time.
Recommend? (1)
GreenLake
11 Dec 2009, 4:26PM
My grandmother was a spiteful old hag. No, really. Mean, bigoted and
ignorant. Maybe there's a lesson there, too.
Recommend? (4)
guardianreeda
11 Dec 2009, 4:31PM
India is the second most populous country in the world and releases
the fifth largest amount of emissions ? yet I would argue that it has
almost negligible per capita emissions, as most of the population is
so poor.
I.e. India is an environmental timebomb starting to go off.
As indians turn from peasants into people living developed lives,
their impact on the planet will start to grow dramatically. Even if
they live 'eco' developed lives, they'll end up having ten times the
impact.
The same story is true in China and other mega-populations emerging
from poverty and peasantry.
People across the globe have been breeding like there's no tomorrow,
and the result is that it will be impossible for everyone to live a
decent developed life.
I don't blame Indians or anyone else for bettering themselves, but the
human race is going to ensure that the earth is much less nice a place
to live in when it's done.
Recommend? (9)
frontline8
11 Dec 2009, 4:36PM
If your Grandmother were alive she would probably say to you not to
buy this scam. Do yourself a favour and read both sides of the
arguement.
Recommend? (1)
grahamjt
11 Dec 2009, 4:37PM
@AntonyIndia
C02 output in metric tons per capita per year: (2006)
India 1.3
China 4.6 (3.5 X more)
UK 9.4 (7.2 X more
Denmark 9.9 (7.6 more)
US 19 (14.6 X more)
China's carbon emissions have risen from 0.61 in 1968 to 4.6 in 2005 -
a rise of more than 700%. In the same period, India's per capita
emissions rose 400% When do you see this slowing down?.
India's population rose from 357,561,000 in 1950 to 1,103,371,000 by
2005 (projected 1.6 billion 2050)
China's population rose from 554,760,000 in 1950 to 1,315,844,000 by
2005 (projected 1.4billion 2050)
Do you think that China and India who collectively will soon represent
about a third of the entire world's population are right to aspire to
western per capita levels of carbon emissions?
Do think Leela is right to mulltiply her carbon footprint by 760% by
coming to the UK?
Recommend? (5)
zeelus
11 Dec 2009, 4:50PM
I don't blame Indians or anyone else for bettering themselves, but the
human race is going to ensure that the earth is much less nice a place
to live in when it's done.
Well the Indian and Chinese should be lifted out of poverty ...but if
the cost of that is going to be large scale cuts in my style of living
then I dont want it.
Thats basically what the west is saying. All that gibberish about
helping poor nations ,aid and all the rest croc of **** doesnt really
matter when things hit close to home. What hypocrites.
I think commentators like these should do and live the kind of lives
that some (a lot) of people in India and China live. Grinding poverty
and hunger is no joke. I am serious when I say I would prefer some sub
merged pacific islands and major coastal cities if growth in under
developed nations would mean they can escape some horrors. And screw
the western hypocrites.
Recommend? (5)
Cellarman
11 Dec 2009, 4:55PM
With India soon to become the worlds most populous nation and its
continuing modernisation measures taken to minimise already admirably
low carbon emissions are to be welcomed.
This Copenhagen business beano could be reflected as a gin-addled
grandmother, pre-Xmas promising so much, ultimately delivering so
little. .
Recommend? (2)
Sazzad
11 Dec 2009, 5:01PM
Can you ask your Nani-ma ......
How can nations like Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Afghanistan have
any say in front of the giant neighbors like India and China?
Recommend? (1)
savvymum
11 Dec 2009, 5:06PM
Contributor Whilst living for a year in India I saw, all over, wooden
ploughs harnessed to bullocks, ploughing the soil of self sustaining
and subsistence farms.
These people are to be thrown off their land to make way for
agribusness and export crops. Read Arundati Roy - she seems to see the
same things I do.
India is not 'shining' in her villages, and that is where India really
lives. Life goes on as it always has, but for 'infrastructure' IMF
loans and 'development'.
Leave India's villages and self sustaining lifestyles alone. What they
do has been done since agriculture was first discovered by man, and
many are doing it the same way. I don't want these people dragged into
the 21st century, into some slum, as agribusiness takes over their
land with government approval and coercion. it's sure as hell is not
going to be better for them is it? prosperity and lifted out of
poverty my backside!
Leave rural India alone. Let's have something in this world that isn't
broken, displaced, screwed up, chewed up and spat out because of
money.
Recommend? (8)
biba4mejico
11 Dec 2009, 5:32PM
Nice -ish middle school essay.
Recommend? (3)
albertjazz
11 Dec 2009, 5:38PM
Climate Change in an industry out of control.
The Third World wants handouts,to then spend money on military
schemes.
Its the Emporers Suit of New Clothes yet again
Recommend? (1)
vakibs
11 Dec 2009, 5:50PM
India has the most ambitious plan amongst all countries with regards
to sustainable energy. It has a 3-stage nuclear power program that is
well into its 2nd stage of operation. The 3rd stage will commence
shortly with wholesome deployment of Fast Breeder Reactors, that use
nuclear fuel very sparingly and have no long term waste issues.
As India has some of the world's most extensive Thorium reserves, such
breeder reactors will power India for several hundreds of thousands of
years. In fact, with breeder reactors, nuclear fuel supply is not a
critical issue at all, and depleted Uranium reserves (also known as
U-238, which remains after the fissile U-235 is extracted from natural
Uranium) that are sitting in the world today themselves can power the
entire world for a thousand years without even the necessity to mine
for a single speck of Uranium.
These breeder reactors are India's long-term answer for energy
security. However, there is a catch. Like a matchstick that lights up
firewood, fissile material such as U235 is required to kick-start a
breeder reactor that later runs exclusively on Thorium or U238. This
fissile material is in very low supply in India. Due to the global
distrust after the 1974 nuclear tests, there have been trade sanctions
on India with respect the sale of U235 and on the sharing of nuclear
power technology. Despite all these sanctions, purely by indigenous
research, India has advanced to its current status as one of the most
advanced nations on nuclear power research.
What pains India is that western countries which have ample supply of
U235 (and who indeed have accumulated massive stockpiles of nuclear
weapons) refuse to use nuclear power and instead rely on coal. Except
for France (which uses nuclear power for 80% of its needs), no other
western country has truly converted to a non-carbon economy. USA has
wantonly murdered a research effort in the 1990s (the Integral Fast
Reactor) before it has become ripe enough for deployment.
It doesn't matter whether western countries use nuclear power or
renewables. The need of the day is to shut down coal plants and revert
to a zero-carbon economy. The economies that are of the biggest size
(and are the most industrially intensive) need to act more quickly and
earnestly. So far, it has been just a talkshop from these countries.
Due to its tropical location, India is more affected by climate change
than many other countries. There is no massive distrust in India on
scientific consensus or on the urgency of acting towards mitigating
carbon emissions. An overwhelming 90% of the people believe in this
urgency, as opposed to just 40% in the USA. It is ridiculous that this
type of distrust prevails more in better educated and developed
countries of the west.
Recommend? (5)
biba4mejico
11 Dec 2009, 5:56PM
There are of course quite a few million educated, informed and capable
people in India who could write about CO2 and Copenhagen without
having this KPMG sponsored school girl drivel.
India, where I come from, is beautiful, dignified and wise ? just like
my grandmother
Did she mention that she and her grandmother must come from some tiny
elite class?
Did she mention the missing women of India? How beautiful and
dignified they might have become if they hadn't been killed at birth?
No! As part of the pandered elite she probably doesn't know of their
very brief existence and quick death (if they weren't buried alive).
No doubt this article will have been twittered and picked up by every
Indian IT nerd in the world. Watch out for 1000 hits
here............... .
.
For crying out loud Guardian.
Recommend? (3)
biba4mejico
11 Dec 2009, 5:59PM
By the way .... it's often the grandmother who helps the young mother
smother her daughter ... is it not?
Recommend? (3)
Erdington
11 Dec 2009, 6:04PM
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not a pollutant.
Plants depend on it to thrive. The increase in CO2 levels my be one of
the factors enhancing crop yields over the past fifty years.
I am more concerned with real pollutants like mercury in coal fired
power stations, mercury in tooth fillings, pesticides and hormones
used in meat production which are harmful to our health.
biba4mejico
11 Dec 2009, 6:11PM
@Erdington
Most people in the world never see a dentist nor do they eat meat.
Those same people WILL be buffeted by changing rainfall patterns that
will flood or dry their food crops and leave them hungry and
starving.
Now fuck off back to suburbia and worry yourself over plastic bottles.
Recommend? (1)
biba4mejico
11 Dec 2009, 6:12PM
YEEEEESSSSSS!
i'M IN A BAD MOOD!
abuse
Clip | Link biba4mejico
11 Dec 2009, 6:20PM
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not a pollutant.
You could argue that you're right .....
Sea water isn't a pollutant ... not even when it hits you at 150kmph
in the form of a 6M high tsunami ...
Recommend? (1)
kaarbaali
11 Dec 2009, 6:42PM
@Leela Raina
"India must speak out at Copenhagen"
Nepal's reliance on China and India stifles criticism at Copenhagen
But my grandmother always tells me how much money she has, but she'd
never allow me to search her purse......
Indeed, very interesting story of your grandmother!
But don't you think, stifling the voices of other grandmothers like
Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan is undemocratic? My grandmother wouldn't
do that. She is not only wise and beautiful, but also generous. She
would always encourage other Grandmothers to speak and she would
listen to them patiently -- no matter how small or poor they are --
very judicious and democratic.
Recommend? (1)
TheGreatRonRafferty
11 Dec 2009, 6:56PM
India has four of the world's richest ten people, nuclear arms, and a
space programme.
Maybe India has the funds, but not the wisdom?
Recommend? (2)
Celtiberico
11 Dec 2009, 7:39PM
India, where I come from, is beautiful, dignified and wise
Sorry to sound cynical, but I'm finding it a little hard to find how
the caste system could be described as beautiful, dignified or wise.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/11/india-copenhagen-climate-change
bademiyansubhanallah
Press Trust Of India
Copenhagen, December 12, 2009
First Published: 09:07 IST(12/12/2009)
Last Updated: 09:58 IST(12/12/2009)
India will not agree to a concept of "peaking" year as there is a huge
backlog of development in expanding rural electricity in the country,
Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has said, as he ruled out
compromise on previously stated "red lines".
On his first day at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, Ramesh
also said that India's national voluntary domestic measures to tackle
climate change were not up for international scrutiny and progress on
these measures would be checked by country's Parliament.
India was here to facilitate a legally binding deal and "has come here
to play a constructive, facilitative, leadership role to ensure and
effective and equitable agreement," Ramesh said.
"But at the same time we will not agree to a concept of peaking year
for India because we have huge backlog of development particularly in
expanding rural electricity supply."
The minister highlighted that not only was India announcing voluntary
target of reducing carbon intensity by 20 to 25 per cent from 2005
levels by 2020 it was also taking a "nationally accountable mitigation
outcome," which means that implementation and progress on these
domestic measures would be checked by Parliament, civil society and
media.
"There is no place on Earth that has domestic MRV (Monitoring,
Reporting, and Verification) as boisterous, intensive an aggressive
that in India."
bademiyansubhanallah
Press Trust Of India
Copenhagen, December 12, 2009
First Published: 13:28 IST(12/12/2009)
Last Updated: 13:32 IST(12/12/2009)
India and the EU on Saturday clashed at the climate conference over
the contentious issue of making domestic commitments legally-binding,
with the European bloc pressing for "verifiable" targets saying no
country had the "right to pollute".
On the fifth day of torturous negotiations here, a debate erupted
between India and the European Union at a press conference where both
sides expressing their views on issues of climate justice.
The director-general of environment for the European Commission Karl
Falkenberger, made it clear that EU expected India, China and other
emerging economies to report on their national mitigation programmes,
which would have to be incorporated in an international treaty, a
demand India has strongly resisted.
"We need these contributions from everyone. We need them in a legally
binding manner from everyone. Differentiated commitments we can accept
but it has to be verifiable," he said.
The remarks drew objection from India, with senior negotiator
Chandrashekar Dasgupta noting that Falkneberg's position fell short of
climate justice.
"There are two things that we are seeking climate adequacy and climate
justice (equity)," Dasgupta said.
"Our position has always been very clear... every human being has an
equal right to resources of the atmosphere; therefore you have to take
the per capita approach taking also into account the historical
emissions," he said.
Sid Harth
Agencies
Posted: Saturday , Dec 12, 2009 at 1132 hrs
Copenhagen:
'India was here to facilitate a legally binding deal', said Jairam
Ramesh.
The pounds are flying offHow many more?Lets change IndiaSanskrit
Festivals India will not compromise on its basic positions on climate
change while playing a constructive role for evolving an effective and
equitable global pact on emission cuts, Environment Minister Jairam
Ramesh has said.
On his first day at the climate meet here, Ramesh also said India's
national voluntary domestic measures to tackle global warming were not
up for international scrutiny and progress on these would be checked
by country's Parliament.
Ramesh told journalists here that his discussions were focused on the
various drafts of potential treaty from the Working Groups on Kyoto,
the African group and Alliance of Island States (AOSIS) that have been
circulating at the climate meet in Copenhagen.
"In all these discussions I have had ... the basic objective was to
highlight not only what India has done in recent weeks pro-actively,
voluntarily but also to underscore the basic positions India will not
compromise on even as it engages in constructive negotiations," he
said.
While ruling out any dilution of previously-stated "red lines" drawn
by India, the Minister also made it clear that it will not agree to
the concept of "peaking" year as it will adversely impact the
development of rural electricity in the country which is already
facing a huge backlog in this area.
India has asserted that every individual has a right to an equal
atmospheric space and feels the rich countries are trying to deny this
to poorer populations of Asia and Africa. It says there cannot be an
international treaty which creates a group of haves and have-nots.
India wants to facilitate a legally-binding deal and "has come here to
play a constructive, facilitative, leadership role to ensure and
effective and equitable agreement," Ramesh said.
"But at the same time we will not agree to a concept of peaking year
for India because we have huge backlog of development particularly in
expanding rural electricity supply."
The draft prepared by the Danish government, also the chair for the UN
climate negotiations here, contains a clause demanding that India and
other emerging economies 'peak' their emissions by 2025, an issue on
which India has strong reservations.
The minister highlighted that not only was India announcing voluntary
target of reducing carbon intensity by 20 to 25 per cent from 2005
levels by 2020 it was also taking a "nationally accountable mitigation
outcome," which means that implementation and progress on these
domestic measures would be checked by Parliament, civil society and
media.
"There is no place on Earth that has domestic MRV (Monitoring,
Reporting, and Verification) as boisterous, intensive and aggressive
as that in India," he said.
New Delhi has raised objections to a move it believes is intended to
help rich countries get out of their commitments on emission cuts as
negotiators from 193 countries struggled to find common ground at
climate talks in the Copenhagen summit.
Opening a new front, small island nations floated their own draft
which is seen by India as an attempt to bracket developed and
developing nations together by junking the 1997 Kyoto Protocol under
which rich nations have to undertake legally-binding emission cuts.
The new draft follows the Danish proposal and BASIC (Brazil, South
Africa, India and China) document.
The BASIC draft circulated at the start of the conference has been
contested by the groups representing the Least Developed Countries and
Small Island States on the ground that it did not reflect their
special vulnerabilities to climate change.
India has said it will not accept any changes or extension to the
Kyoto Protocol, which is the only legally-binding document that
imposes emission reduction targets on industrialised countries,
excluding US.
Environment Secretary Vijay Sharma said the new proposals sought to
"bracket" rich countries and emerging economies and weaken legal
obligations of developed nations under Kyoto protocol.
Ramesh stressed that all action supported by international finance was
subject to MRV but unsupported action was exclusively India's
business.
The minister said that while India and China were coordinating very
closely at Copenhagen, the two countries should not be compared in
terms of emissions with China being number one and India being five.
"We are not in the same boat," he said.
Comments (3) |
Relax For Balanced Draft
By: Madan Menon Thottasseri | 12-Dec-2009
Todd Stern%u2019s point is that the United States has to remain
steadfast in demanding certain commitments to curb emissions from
India and China taking into account that all future increase in
emissions of greenhouse gases in the coming decades is anticipated to
come mainly from China , of course India too. Thus the draft plan has
to a balanced as a whole with due application of futuristic judgement.
I think that India and China have to seriously take this point and can
address it by relaxing the unbending attitude to some extent , get
along U.S and pave the way for achieving a result.India and U.S can
jointly prevail on EU and AOSIS to win at Copenhagen
Give Indian's the basic rights and then everything will follow
By: freddie | 12-Dec-2009
India need to sort out the problem where the basic need of India
people are not met. India is world worst place to avoid following
safety rules. India is world's worst place for road accidents. India
is world's worst place for railway accidents. Mr.PM please let the
Indian know what basic step have you taken to tackle this problem.
Climate change will follow accordingly
India not to budge on basic climate positions: Ramesh
By: Dr. S. Vaid | 12-Dec-2009
Dear Sir: I hope our delegation to Kopenhagen, including the Prime
Minister and the Minister do not crack under the immense pressure from
USA and EU and agree to some deals which are not in the interest of
India. India is at the beginning on the road to developement - it is a
long way to go. It should not accept blocks on its way to a reasonable
standard of living for its 1.1 billion citizens, which the western
countries already have. At this stage it is important to compare the
per capita emmissions and not the total emmissions per country, which
the developed nations would like to be the basis.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/india-not-to-budge-on-basic-climate-positions-ramesh/553320/0
bademiyansubhanallah
Arati Jerath
Sunday, December 13, 2009 2:22 IST
Rarely has an Indian delegation to a multi-lateral negotiation been as
bitterly divided as the one fighting the climate war raging in
Copenhagen these days. It's the talk of the town, not just here in New
Delhi but in the Danish capital too, with hard-headed negotiators of
the developed countries looking to exploit to their advantage the
faultlines between environment minister Jairam Ramesh and his team of
officials. Here's one fissure that hasn't healed despite Manmohan
Singh's efforts to play peacemaker. The PM's special envoy on climate
change, Shyam Saran, took the unprecedented step of flying home the
day Ramesh boarded the plane to Copenhagen.
The ostensible reason: Saran was coming back to brief Singh and
prepare for next week's gathering of top world leaders which the PM
will attend. But the grapevine says they didn't want to share the same
space, given their mutual hostility.
Sparks may still fly in Copenhagen because Ramesh is at loggerheads
with the rest of the team as well. Although he has gone with a tight
brief marked by deep red lines, there is apprehension here about the
kind of pressures he may come under once he retires to the green room
with ministerial representatives from other countries to hammer out an
agreement to put up to Obama and company next week. Enter CPI(M) MP
Sitaram Yechury. He will probably play gatekeeper to ensure there's no
deviation from the accepted national position. Significantly, Yechury
has delayed his return from Copenhagen by a day so that he is there
when the final document is released on December 19. He just wants to
make sure there's no last-minute hanky-panky. Who would have thought a
dry subject like climate change could lend itself to cloak-and-dagger
games!
* * *
While Jairam Ramesh bore the brunt of an opposition walkout in the
Rajya Sabha last week, another minister, also in the thick of
fractious multi-lateral negotiations, won a vote of approval cutting
across party lines. Commerce and industry minister Anand Sharma was
applauded, if grudingly, for his stand at the ongoing WTO talks by
another WTO veteran, Arun Jaitley, who served as commerce minister in
the Vajpayee government. Sharma's secret: he has kept the opposition
in the loop about the negotiations. Sharma regularly sends a team of
officials to brief Jaitley, Yechury and D Raja of the CPI, as he
disclosed in his reply to the discussion. Ironically, while climate
change negotiations have become the prerogative of a few people, a
group of ministers headed by finance minister Pranab Mukherjee
oversees the trade talks to keep a consensus going. Maybe the PM
should consider a similar mechanism for climate change so that India
can present a united face for the difficult post-Copenhagen round.
* * *
TAILPIECE
What is YSR's son Jagan Reddy up to while Andhra Pradesh burns over
Telangana?
Those who monitor his Telugu television channel Sakshi are intrigued
by the kind of play being given to the demand for a separate Telangana
state. They feel that the coverage has fanned the flames and they've
conveyed their concerns to the top leadership of the Congress party.
Is that why Pranab Mukherjee met Jagan for a one-on-one chat instead
of receiving him with the rest of the Andhra MPs? Jagan has made no
secret of his ambition to be chief minister, even at the cost of
destabilising the incumbent, K Rosaiah, who has just been officially
confirmed in the post.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/comment_cloak-and-dagger-in-copenhagen_1323076
Sid Harth
Aggressive India to make a political statement at Copenhagen
PTI 13 December 2009, 08:56pm IST
COPENHAGEN: Ruling out any compromise in its stand, environment
minister Jairam Ramesh on Sunday pitched for a strong political
statement at the end of the climate change talks and asserted that a
deal must be reached by next year.
Speaking to reporters here, he made it clear that the text of the
political statement would be ready before Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh and other world leaders reach Copenhagen for the final leg of
the 12-day talks.
"I have clearly and categorically stated on behalf of the government
of India that our Prime Minister is not coming here to negotiate the
text," he said.
Singh is due to arrive here on December 17. "India would not
compromise on 'teen-murti' (United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, Kyoto Protocol and Bali Action Plan)," Ramesh said
ahead of tomorrow's high-level segment which would see participation
of environment ministers from across the globe.
"We must get an agreement in 2010," he said, adding that the text of
the political statement should be ready by December 15.
bademiyansubhanallah
PTI Sunday, December 13, 2009 20:28 IST
Last updated: Sunday, December 13, 2009 20:32 IST
Copenhagen: Ruling out any compromise in its stand, environment
minister Jairam Ramesh today pitched for a strong political statement
at the end of the climate change talks and asserted that a deal must
be reached by next year.
Speaking to reporters here, he made it clear that the text of the
political statement would be ready before prime minister Manmohan
Singh and other world leaders reach Copenhagen for the final leg of
the 12-day talks.
"I have clearly and categorically stated on behalf of the government
of India that our Prime Minister is not coming here to negotiate the
text," he said.
"India would not compromise on 'teen-murti' (United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto Protocol and Bali Action Plan),"
Ramesh said ahead of tomorrow's high-level segment which would see
participation of environment ministers from across the globe.
"We must get an agreement in 2010," he said, adding that the text of
the political statement should be ready by December 15.
Informal talks among the environment ministers on the draft deal,
criticised by rich nations and emerging economies, continued over the
weekend with the hope that they could agree on a text that could be
put before the heads of state and government assembling for the
plenary here later next week.
The highlight of the past week was an attempt by tiny Pacific Island
nation Tuvalu to stall the negotiations by staging a walkout as the
chair of the conference refused to take up its proposal for limiting
the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius from the pre-
industrial years.
However, Danish minister Connie Hedegaard, chairing the talks,
insisted that procedural advances in the first six days had been
"fantastic."
"The core discussions... have really started," she said adding the the
delegates "still have a daunting task in front of us over the next few
days."
Ramesh, who is here to participate in the ministerial meet, has said
India will play a constructive role in the climate negotiations but
slammed efforts of rich nations to make domestic emission reduction
claims by developing nations legally-binding and verifiable.
bademiyansubhanallah
R Jagannathan
Thursday, December 10, 2009 8:32 IST Email
India's unilateral decision to undertake a reduction in the carbon
intensity of its growth is, on the face of it, a farsighted decision.
Despite the brouhaha about how it will affect industry and future
growth, it's the right thing to do because no country -- howsoever
poor -- can deny responsibility for the environmental damage it
inflicts through careless growth.
However, we have no blueprint for action. Neither Manmohan Singh nor
Jairam Ramesh seem to have a gameplan on how we're going to achieve
what is promised. On the contrary, in the last five years, Singh's
government has done everything possible to promote the use of carbon
fuels -- by subsidising them. It's difficult to see how the prime
minister is going to get his politically-tough policy choices
implemented when he has been fighting shy of raising fuel prices for
much of his first term. He paid for the fuel subsidies by looting our
own public sector oil companies.
Bringing down carbon intensity calls for a systemic response which
will have many, many consequences -- all of them political. The easy
part is to direct investment towards energy-saving and green
technology. For a government which can gift away several hundred
thousand crores of rupees in needless subsidies to the non-poor, spend
over Rs1,86,000 crore to revive growth, and write off over Rs71,000
crore to farmers, it should not at all be difficult to redirect
resources towards research on solar and wind energy, energy-saving
devices, and the works.
Spending brings political dividends, but the shift in energy intensity
goalposts will bring more losers than winners. Many energy-intensive
industries will decline. Prices will rise in the short run, as the
cost of turning green is passed on to consumers. And the short run can
stretch for years. We should be prepared to see a deceleration in
growth -- for higher prices and costs will have to be combined with
deflationary policies.
The big question: are we prepared for the 'butterfly effect' of policy
on polity? The term butterfly effect comes from chaos theory, where
final outcomes can be completely unexpected given a very small initial
impetus. Metaphorically, it is said that a butterfly flapping its
wings in the Gulf of Mexico can cause a typhoon in Texas.
The 20-25% cut in carbon intensity promised by 2020 will create a
butterfly effect that will hugely impact Indian politics. Several
populist programmes will have to be rethought. The crown jewel in the
UPA's pot of populist programmes is Nrega -- the national rural
employment guarantee scheme. But it has a direct impact on carbon
intensity and green policies.
When money is handed over to the poor, they spend more on food. This
is the prime reason why food prices are zooming. As the poor earn
more, small and marginal farmers suddenly find that labour costs also
rise -- and this becomes a spur for further food price increases. In
cities, food prices are becoming a big political issue. When this
boils over, there will be pressures to invest more in agricultural
productivity, which means more fertilisers and pesticides. The green
way out would be to emphasise organic farming, but this means reducing
food output in the short run (unthinkable), raising fertiliser prices,
and removing subsidies. Which government will volunteer to do this?
Fertilisers come largely from carbon-based feedstocks.
Now think energy. If green power has to be given greater play, power
costs will rise. Feeding solar power into the grid will cost at least
four times as much, which means higher power subsidies, unless we
raise power prices for homes and industry. If this is somehow pushed
through, the sticker prices of industrial and consumer goods will go
up. Which government will have the gumption to weather the urban storm
as a result of this? And we haven't even talked about fossil fuels.
The only way to go green on energy is to raise the prices of petrol
and diesel, and restrict the subsidies on cooking gas and kerosene.
Which politician will handle this hot potato?
Scores of industries -- from automobiles to engineering, steel and
cement to chemicals -- will see costs rise as they adjust to the new
norms on carbon intensity. The pressure to trim costs elsewhere may
result in downsizing labour, and urban consumers will be a disgruntled
lot. Thousands of old automobiles will have to be junked -- and we
know how everyone resists the idea of scrapping any vehicles.
These are only a few of the consequences of reducing carbon intensity.
One does not know what caused Manmohan Singh and Jairam Ramesh to make
a bold dash to climate heroism. But the nation will pay a heavy price
for something they haven't yet been told anything about. We are on a
whim and a prayer -- Manmohan and Jairam Ramesh's whims and everybody
else's prayers.
http://www.dnaindia.com/opinion/column_on-a-whim-and-a-prayer_1322097
chhotemianinshallah
Nitin Sethi, TNN 14 December 2009, 04:52am IST
COPENHAGEN: At 55 degrees and 43 minutes north, the winter sun sets
early in Copenhagen, plunging the city into a cold grey gloom that
only Christmas celebrations can lift. But on Sunday, the chilling news
that climate change talks could break down completely spread far
deeper dismay in the Danish capital.
Negotiators and ministers from 192 countries took the day off from
formal talks to discuss the looming possibility that they could fail
the world in its search for an equitable and scientifically adequate
agreement to prevent disastrous climate change. The chances of a
stalemate loomed large as governments went into informal huddles over
the weekend.
The ministerial round that began on Saturday only added to the fear
that industrialised countries were not ready to budge from their
stands and the negotiations were headed towards a collapse.
The Indian and the Chinese governments made it clear that their
leaders, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Premier Wen Jiabao, were
not going to come in at the end of the talks to crack the fine
details, they would agree only if the industrialised world was ready
for a deal by December 16.
Many industrialised countries remained firm in their stand that Kyoto
Protocol must die and emerging economies must undertake international
obligations under one name or the other regardless of their historical
burden of emitting greenhouse gases, or the lack of it.
Environment minister Jairam Ramesh, in between an array of parleys and
closed-door discussions, came out to say, “The UN draft on low-term
cooperation (LCA) can become the roadmap for fighting climate change,
provided the clauses of peaking year for emissions, cutdown on
emissions by all and a review of domestic mitigation actions are not
there.’’ However, he added that a few agreed on the point.
Rumours flew fast and thick that if the US could not secure a weak
“pledge and review’’ kind of agreement that it had been supporting for
months, President Barack Obama may give the meet a miss.
The industrialised countries want to hammer out a large part of the
deal on the last day when the heads of states arrive. "It is
ridiculous to expect the heads of states of poor countries to have the
capacity to deal at such detailed level. It’s a ploy to slip in
provisions that are not amenable to developing country efforts. It’s
playing dirty,’’ said an African negotiator. “Europe and Japan have
refused to sign any agreement without the US on board with strong
mitigation commitments and the latter refuses to be part of Kyoto,’’
Ramesh said. “India will not allow Kyoto to be discarded and India
wants an agreement.’’
Ramesh has rejected the Australian proposal that the heads of states
and ministers should decide the final text for the political statement
to be made on December 18, a day after they announce their domestic
climate plans.
On Sunday, when most negotiators rested and waited for Monday, it
became evident that all the positive domestic announcements of
emerging economies like India, China, Brazil and South Africa, days
ahead of the talks, had still not got Obama to turn less Bush or for
the Europeans and other industrialised countries to depend less on the
US president for deliverance.
bademiyansubhanallah
(Source: IANS)
Published: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 at 10:03 IST
New Delhi: India remains committed towards protecting the environment
and willing to do more to fight climate change but cannot do so at the
cost of perpetuating poverty among developing nations, Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh said Thursday.
In a statement ahead of his visit to Copenhagen for the climate change
summit, the prime minister said India looked forward to working with
the rest of the world to preserve and protect our environment.
"This is our common heritage and this is what we must bequeath to our
succeeding generations. At the same time, climate change cannot be
addressed by perpetuating the poverty of the developing countries," he
said.
The prime minister said global warming was impacting most heavily on
developing countries like India and, as a responsible member of the
international community, the country will do its bit to protect the
environment.
"It is in keeping with this principle that I had earlier announced at
Heiligendamm (Germany) in 2007 that we will maintain our per capita
emissions at a level lower than the average per capita emissions of
developed countries," he said.
"I look forward to constructive deliberations in Copenhagen which meet
the collective aspirations of all humankind and enable us to move
forward in the global efforts to combat climate change."
The prime minister also listed some initiatives taken by the country
as a responsible member of the international community:
-Commitment to reduce growth-linked emissions intensity by 20-25
percent over the 2005 levels by 2020
-Comprehensive action plan on climate change
-Eight national missions set up on various facets of climate change
and protecting environment
-Willingness to do more if there are credible arrangements for
additional financial support and technological transfers from rich
nations.
Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, along with Prime Minister's Special
Envoy on Climate Change Shyam Saran, are among senior officials
accompanying the prime minister to Copenhagen on the two-day visit.
Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh is already heading the Indian
delegation at the summit - formally called the 15th Conference of
Parties of the United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change
(UNFCCC).
http://www.samaylive.com/news/india-for-collective-responsibility-towards-environment-pm/670792.html
bademiyansubhanallah
Published by: Noor Khan
Published: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 at 18:54 IST
London: A large number of cities across the world, including the
eastern Indian metropolis of Kolkata, are at risk from the threat of
rising sea level due to global warming, a major international study
has claimed.
According to the study by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic
Research, sea levels would rise by twice as much as previously
predicted as a result of global warming and by 2100 they would be up
to 1.4 metres.
Such a rise in sea levels would engulf island nations such as the
Maldives in the Indian Ocean and Tuvalu in the Pacific, devastate
coastal cities such as Calcutta and Dhaka and force London, New York
and Shanghai to spend billions on flood defences, 'The Times'
reported.
Even if the average global temperature increases by only 2C -- the
target set for next week's Copenhagen summit -- sea levels could still
rise by 50 cm, twice that predicted two years ago, the study has
calculated.
SCAR, a partnership of 35 of the world's leading climate research
institutions, made the prediction in the report 'Antarctic Climate
Change and Climate'. It far exceeds the 0.59 metre rise by the end of
the century quoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) in 2007.
SCAR scientists said that the IPCC underestimated grossly how much the
melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets would contribute to
total sea-level rises.
In a related interview with the British newspaper, Dr Rajendra
Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC, said geo-engineering, where carbon is
stripped from the atmosphere using specialist technologies, would be
necessary to control runaway damage to the climate.
"At some point we will have to cross over and start sucking some of
those gases out of the atmosphere," he said, adding world leaders
meeting in Copenhagen should aim for a target of no more than a 1.5C
rise in global temperatures.
The IPCC report predicted that the melting of ice sheets would
contribute about 20 per cent of the total rise in sea levels, with the
majority coming from the melting of glaciers and the expansion of the
water as it warms. It said that it was not able to predict the impact
of melting ice sheets, but suggested this could add 10-20cm.
http://www.samaylive.com/news/kolkata-at-risk-from-rising-sea-level/669563.html
chhotemianinshallah
By Rama Lakshmi
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, December 17, 2009
NEW DELHI -- With his blue-gloved hands, Rizwan Ali lowered the forked
dredging tool slowly into the foul-smelling river and pulled out
rotting marigold garlands, shoes, plastic bags, decaying fabric, gooey
industrial waste and broken bangles.
"This is the first time I have come to the river. It is black and full
of filth. There are no fish. Is it a river or a drain?" Ali said,
before turning to teach a group of children how to clean the Yamuna
River, as part of a volunteer drive to revive New Delhi's lifeline.
"Because of our lifestyle and neglect, the river is breathing its last
breath."
The relationship between the holy Yamuna River, said to be a
manifestation of a Hindu goddess, and the Indian capital is a complex
one. Most residents are aware of its plight but rarely visit the
riverbank, except to make Hindu religious offerings during festivals
and funerals. The city gets 70 percent of its drinking water from the
Yamuna, even though the river has become a drain for the city's
filth.
Environmentalists say that daily dumping of untreated sewage and
industrial waste and the development along the river's fragile flood
plains have choked it, thinning its flow.
"We have killed the Yamuna River and turned New Delhi into a heat
sink. The river reflects the true character of our capital -- its
flawed planning, unsustainable lifestyle and corruption. It is the
dirty underbelly of the city," said Manoj Kumar Misra, coordinator for
the Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan, a coalition of more than 10 citizen groups
fighting to bring the river back in people's consciousness.
The story of the Yamuna River is not unique. Almost all of India's
major rivers have suffered because of population growth, development,
industrial and urban waste, as well as religious rituals in which
residents toss flowers, fruits and coconuts into the water.
Fourteen years ago, India set up the National River Conservation Plan
to protect 38 ailing rivers, and it has spent hundreds of millions of
dollars to bring the rivers back to life. Officials have built sewage
treatment plants, modern toilets and electric crematoria so that
Hindus have an alternative to dispose of their dead.
Despite these interventions, India's environment minister, Jairam
Ramesh, told Parliament over the summer that rivers such as the Ganges
and the Yamuna are "no cleaner than 20 years ago."
The 13-mile stretch of Yamuna that runs through the capital is the
dirtiest of any river in India, unable to sustain aquatic life and
unfit even for animals to bathe in. After descending from the
Himalayas, the Yamuna flows through five states. But it is reduced to
a dirty trickle in New Delhi, in part because of heavy usage by
factories and farms upstream.
Pollution by the capital's burgeoning population exacerbates the
problem.
"Every year, New Delhi adds half a million more people. And 60 percent
of the people live in neighborhoods without any sewage treatment
facility. All the urban waste goes into the river," said Tejendra
Khanna, the lieutenant governor of Delhi and chairman of the two-year-
old Yamuna River Development Authority.
New Delhi dumps 870 million gallons of sewage into the river daily, of
which only 200 million gallons are treated. In the next five years,
Khanna plans to lay 189 interceptor sewers and connect them to
treatment plants.
But Khanna said the city's plans will be effective only if its
residents change their attitude toward the Yamuna. Dozens of public
education campaigns have been launched in recent years to breathe life
back into the abused river.
"We want to bring the river back to the mind-map of the citizens. We
make them realize that we are all complicit in reducing our river into
a sewer," said Lopamudra Sanyal, senior program manager at Swechha, a
volunteer initiative that raises awareness about the Yamuna's pitiful
state, especially by taking school groups for walks along the river.
"For most of them, it is the first visit to the river, although they
have experienced the stench of the river from a distance or when they
drive over it."
Last week, 14-year-old Sakshee Chawla went with her classmates on a
river walk.
"I was shocked to see that the river is actually very clean before it
enters our city. It is in Delhi that the Yamuna becomes so filthy,"
Chawla said. "It fills me with shame."
The campaigns appear to be putting pressure on the government, as
well.
The state of the river became a campaign issue in city elections last
year. Plans to build a heliport, a Formula One racing track and a
cricket school on the Yamuna riverbed were suspended after citizens
protested. Officials visited Bangkok last month to study the cleanup
of the Chao Phraya River and will soon go to London to learn from the
revival of the River Thames.
The government is also building three upstream reservoirs that will
hold water and release it into the Yamuna during the dry months, to
restore its full flow.
"A city by the river is a great natural boon. It offers respite to its
people," said Khanna, the lieutenant governor. "My hope is to turn
what is shameful today into a matter of pride in five years."
Comments
citizen625 wrote:
Over population is overwhelming the planet. Use less, save more. It is
so easy to say and so hard to do.
12/17/2009 5:49:14 AM
Recommend (0)
dmathew1 wrote:
In India on a small scale we see what technological civilization has
done on a large scale to the entire planet. Whereas the Indians have
made a sewer of their sacred river the Americans have made a sewer of
the entire planet.
It is a sad comment on humankind and human nature. Humans destroy
everything as our species destroys its own self.
There's no reforming humankind, either. The species is headed to
extinction and accelerating itself along that path.
So much for humankind. But the sun will keep rising and flowers will
keep blooming after humankind has finished driving itself extinct.
http://www.flickr.com/dmathew1
12/17/2009 5:29:31 AM
Recommend (0)
TOMHERE wrote:
A NUCLEAR POWER eats it own feces.
Oops. Should have written "ANOTHER" nuclear power.
12/17/2009 5:13:08 AM
Recommend (0)
goaway5 wrote:
The world would be so much better off without India.
12/17/2009 4:40:26 AM
Recommend (1)
beltwaybandit wrote:
And another one bites the dust, and yet the population increases by .5
million every year there. COMPLETE ecological disaster is coming
soon....I wonder how the capitalists will make moeny off it.
12/17/2009 3:56:05 AM
Recommend (1)
OttoDog wrote:
Right...and these are the same guys in Copenhagen screaming that we
don't do enough for their environment.
12/17/2009 12:08:54 AM
Recommend (1)
dvsikka wrote:
All this well known for years and years. The problem is India's
corruption. All schemes fail because of bad implementation. Can India
do anything about it.
12/17/2009 12:03:02 AM
Recommend (1)
JBGJRESQ wrote:
What a screwed-up society.
12/16/2009 11:25:22 PM
Recommend (2)
thealaskan wrote:
The Potomac?
12/16/2009 11:17:40 PM
Recommend (2)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/16/AR2009121603782.html
bademiyansubhanallah
Jumana Shah & Summit Khanna / DNA
Thursday, December 17, 2009 10:35 IST
Ahmedabad: In an exclusive interview with DNA, Gujarat power and
industries minister Saurabh Patel discussed the state's future plans
for energy.
What do the ongoing Climate Change summit in Copenhagen, world energy
conservation day celebrations, and Gujarat have in common?
They are all concerned about the future requirements of energy and the
impact of power generation on global warming. Even as there is a
debate underway on India's commitment to reduction in carbon
emissions, the Modi government already has several ambitious plans for
energy generation.
The future is gas-based power generation. In the next few years,
Gujarat aims to switch to clean mechanisms -- such as solar, hydro,
wind and tidal power -- for as much as 50 per cent of its total power
generation. A tidal power project will be launched either in the Gulf
of Kutch or Khambhat.
This will be achieved at a huge initial cost. But the extra cash will
be well spent as it will lead to savings on recurring expenses. It
will ensure that state's carbon emission does not shoot up in the next
decade because of its power generation projects.
What are your thoughts on Climate Change and how high is it on Gujarat
government's agenda?
Climate Change is an issue that is being debated world over and needs
to be tackled seriously. Gujarat has already started doing its bit by
promoting clean energy. In fact, Gujarat is the first state in the
country to set up a separate Climate Change department. The state
government has been encouraging the use of clean fuels to generate
energy. Unfortunately, the amounts of such clean fuel (such as gas)
needed in Gujarat is very high but we do not have adequate supplies.
How is the state government promoting green energy?
We are promoting power generation through renewable sources such as
wind and solar power. We are also focusing on nuclear power
generation. The state government is working on a biomass policy for
electricity generation, the draft of which is being readied and will
be soon placed in the assembly.
How are things shaping up as far as wind power generation is
concerned?
As far as wind energy is concerned, Gujarat, with an installed power
generation capacity of over 1,500 MW, is second only to Tamil Nadu. We
are promoting this sector in a big way and aim to expand capacity by a
further 500 MW this year. We are utilising state PSUs such as GACL,
GNFC, GSFC, GMDC and GSPC to generate wind power.
The cost of tapping solar power for energy is very high. How does the
government plan to overcome this problem?
The Gujarat government is taking the lead in promoting solar energy
generation. We realise that as solar energy is costlier than power
from other sources, it will never pick up if it is not taken
seriously. We have, therefore, decided to offer Gujarat Urja Vikas
Nigam Limited Rs1,000 crore as subsidy for solar power generation for
the next 10 years.
It is a huge sum, but it will ensure that solar energy is properly
tapped. Moreover, once new technologies are produced, the cost of
power will come down and the subsidy burden will ease. The government
is even planning to promote hybrid power generation through plants
that run on sunlight during daytime and gas at night.
What is the status of the work on expanding the gas grid in the state?
Gujarat was the first state to encourage use of gas as fuel and
continues to do so. We already have gas grid in 15 districts and plan
to cover the remaining areas soon. We also want to include the smaller
towns in North Gujarat and Saurashtra. The grid will be expanded to
Pipavav, Jamnagar, Rajkot, Mundra, Mehsana, Vapi and other places.
Around 150 CNG stations will be set up across the state in the next 15
months.
These include mother stations which will be directly connected to the
main pipeline, and daughter stations which will be supplied gas by
tankers. We are even asking all government vehicles to switch to CNG.
What is the status of the work on expanding the gas grid in the state?
Gujarat was the first state to encourage use of gas as fuel and
continues to do so. We already have gas grid in 15 districts and plan
to cover the remaining areas soon. We also want to include the smaller
towns in North Gujarat and Saurashtra. The grid will be expanded to
Pipavav, Jamnagar, Rajkot, Mundra, Mehsana, Vapi and other places.
chhotemianinshallah
Manmohan in Copenhagen; seeks to preserve areas of consensus
PTI
AP Activists from Greenpeace gatecrash the State Dinner hosted by the
Queen of Denmark for heads of State who participate in the COP15
climate summit in Copenhagen on Thursday. Photo: AP
With consensus eluding climate talks, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
arrived here late on Thursday night with a message to preserve the
areas of consensus on mitigation actions and finances and transfers of
green technologies to developing countries enshrined in the Bali
Action Plan.
Prior to the meeting of over 110 world leaders at the climate change
conference, Dr. Singh is scheduled to meet with his Chinese
counterpart Wen Jiabao in a bid to consolidate position of the
developing countries for the plenary.
“The UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol embody the international agreed
regime for addressing the global challenge of climate change,” Dr.
Singh had said in a statement before departing for Denmark.
Communique
The 12-day 15th Conference of Parties, which concludes here on Friday,
is expected to issue a short communique on the need and urgency to
arrest climate change instead of a political statement which could
form a basis that could be the basis of a legally-binding agreement in
the future.
US President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French
President Nicholas Sarkozy, are among the 110 leaders expected to
attend the conference.
The developing countries have been resisting attempts by the rich
nations to set aside the Kyoto Protocol, which sets legally binding
greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for the industrialised
nations. The 1997 protocol also has a strong compliance mechanism
built in which penalises the rich nations if they do not meet emission
reduction targets agreed upon by them.
Strong pitch for global temperature
The rich nations are expected to make a Strong pitch for limiting the
global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius, agreeing to achieve 80
per cent emission cuts by 2050 and push the developing countries to
undertake strong mitigation actions which would see a significant
deviation from the business as usual approach.
However, the above points do not mention a base year for from which
the emission reductions would be undertaken but stresses on
transparent verification actions for all the parties.
The group of four comprising Brazil, South Africa, India and China
(BASIC) are expected to strongly oppose this proposal contending that
it makes no reference to the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change, the Bali Action Plan and the Kyoto Protocol.
Kyoto Protocol
Though some countries have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the Bali
Action Plan of 2007 and the UNFCCC were adopted by consensus and
states. It asks nations not having ratified Kyoto to take commitments
comparable to those agreed to it.
The Prime Minister is expected to stress precisely this point
insisting that it was very important to preserve the areas of
consensus and agree to continue negotiations based on the Bali Action
Plan and the UNFCCC.
India and other developing countries have been insisting that neither
would they take up legally binding emission cuts, nor accept a year by
which their emissions would peak.
BASIC countries
The BASIC countries have agreed to reduce the intensity of their
emissions and indicated flexibility over agreeing to international
review mitigation actions funded by international finances.
However, they do not agree any international review of their voluntary
mitigation actions which are funded domestically.
Till Thursday afternoon there was no consensus on an agreement. The
two negotiation groups -- Adhoc Working Group (AWG) on Long Term
Cooperative Actions and the AWG on Kyoto Protocol -- have submitted
their reports with bracketed parts which are open to discussion. It is
unlikely that the COP-15 would be able to reach an agreement and
negotiations are expected to continue next year.
Denmark, the chair of the conference is understood to have prepared a
three-page draft on broad consensus.
The Copenhagen summit is meant to agree a global climate deal, as a
basis for agreement on a full treaty next year, intended to avoid
dangerous climate change and drive a shift to a greener global economy
less dependent on fossil fuels.
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article66740.ece?homepage=true
chhotemianinshallah
75% deal on norms to verify emission cuts
JAYANTA BASU
Copenhagen, Dec. 17: India has shown a sign of accommodation at the
climate change summit here, indicating it is ready to discuss
international scrutiny of its domestic actions to curb greenhouse
emissions.
Delhi’s negotiating manoeuvre may have helped secure a gift from
America to developing countries — an announcement this morning by
secretary of state Hillary Clinton that the US would work with other
nations to create by 2020 a $100-billion-a-year fund to help the
developing countries deal with climate change.
India has consistently asserted that it would open only emission-
curbing actions supported by foreign finance to international scrutiny
— a process known as monitoring review and verification (MRV). Both
India and China have been under pressure from the European Union and
the US to allow MRV on all emission-curbing actions.
Environment minister Jairam Ramesh, who had indicated the need for the
country to be “flexible”, today said India had agreed to three-fourths
of the issues involving verification. “We had a meeting with the
Americans this morning and had 75 per cent agreement on verification —
25 per cent remain,” Ramesh said.
“The modus operandi of reporting of domestic actions to international
agencies such as a UN climate change agency remains a sore point,” a
source said. While India is prepared to give some information,
Americans want more.
“We don’t want MRV to become a make-or-break issue — there are other
important issues like Kyoto (Protocol) and the long-term co-operation
that need to be sorted out,” the minister said. “I said in Parliament
we need to be flexible. Anyway, India is one of the most transparent
countries in the world and we have nothing to hide.”
CPM leader Sitaram Yechury, who is part of the Indian delegation at
the climate summit, said if India agreed to the provisions of MRV for
domestic action, the issue would be raised in Parliament.
Ramesh’s announcement came after Clinton made a veiled threat in
Copenhagen that unless China and India took on emission curbs and
opened themselves to international monitoring of their emission curbs,
no US financial deal would be possible.
Clinton said the US would help raise funds as long as China and India
accepted binding commitments that they were open to international
inspection and verification.
“In the absence of an operational agreement that meets the
requirements that I outlined, there will not be that financial
agreement, at least from the US,” Clinton said, reflecting the Obama
administration’s domestic compulsions. Unless the Obama administration
can convince politicians back home that China and India have made some
concessions, emission controls in the US would be impossible to push
through.
Clinton said the US expected transparency in actions aimed at curbing
emissions.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who reached Copenhagen today, said in a
statement before leaving Delhi: “We are willing to do more (to reduce
emissions) provided there are credible arrangements to provide
additional financial support (and) technological transfers from the
developed to the developing countries.”
Ramesh said two draft texts released by two groups of negotiators at
the climate summit would form the core of the political draft that is
expected to emerge from the summit. A key contentious issue in the
talks has been whether to continue with the 12-year old Kyoto Protocol
which imposes legally binding emissions reductions on the rich
countries.
Developing countries want industrialised countries to take on deep
emissions reductions in the second phase of the Kyoto Protocol -- 2013
onwards.
But several industrialised countries are unhappy that the US and China
which make up 50 per cent of the world's emissions are not part of the
Kyoto Protocol. They want a new pact with both US and China onboard.
Clinton, while announcing the $100 billion pledge, said the US
expected transparency in actions aimed at curbing emissions.
“If there is not even a commitment to pursue transparency, that’s kind
of a dealbreaker for us,” Clinton said. “All the major economies have
committed to transparency. Now that we're trying to define what
transparency means and how we would both implement it and observe it,
there is a backing away from transparency,” she said.
Non-government conference observers have welcomed the US pledge, but
said the source of the funding and the contribution from the US itself
still remains unclear.
“Financing was one of the missing pieces in Copenhagen,” said Jennifer
Morgan, a senior analyst with the World Resources Institute in the US.
“This is a solid first step. But the world will need further
clarification on the specifics, particularly whether this money will
be additional to current funding,” Morgan said.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091218/jsp/frontpage/story_11881078.jsp
bademiyansubhanallah
18 Dec 2009, 1245 hrs IST, PTI
COPENHAGEN: As world leaders raced against time to hammer out a deal
to combat global warming, India today said it was working with the US
and other key negotiators to try to work out a "coordinated" position
at the climate change meet here.
US Chief Negotiator Todd Stern "expressed support for some of the
elements but disagreed with some of the other elements that we have
suggested. We are trying to work out a coordinated position," he told
reporters here.
India and the US also held discussions on the contentious issue of
monitoring, review and verification (MRV) and made some progress but
there was no major breakthrough.
"Seventy five per cent of the formula has been accepted," Ramesh
said.
However, the remaining 25 per cent stems from the review mechanism
issue where India insists that it will provide only information while
the US is pushing for a mire consultative mechanism. "The Americans
still want some review mechanism that we cannot agree to," he said.
After the meeting, Ramesh said that he told the Americans, "You should
be transparent about the word transparency."
With negotiations reaching a final stage at the climate change meet,
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh arrived here last night to lead the
Indian delegation at the crucial talks.
The key elements to India's MRV policy are that national communication
(NATCOM) of the actions taken to the United Nations Framework
Convention (UNFCCC) every two years, the second is that all supported
actions like using funds or technology from abroad would be reported
and third domestic MRV would be conducted by international
guidelines.
Domestic MRVs will also be exchanged between parties on a voluntary
basis for information purposes only.
However, after the discussions the question remains whether these will
be reflected in the text since negotiations will close shortly.
On the mysterious Danish text, Ramesh said it has "been buried".
India, he said, was worried about the level of international security
and intrusiveness on unsupportive action on which it was not going to
compromise.
On the political declaration, the Minister said the Danish Prime
Minister had stated that it was not a new draft.
"I had asked him whether he has outsourced the preparation of the
declaration. He said he has not outsourced it. It will be based on two
texts that are agreed to by the negotiating groups," he said.
Ramesh said other important issues for India on which he had spoken of
'red lines' in Parliament include the concept of peaking year and the
nature of legally binding commitments.
"We have bigger issues to find out. We should be the last one to be
worried about transparency. We have one of the most transparent
systems in the world. We have on of the most accountable systems in
the world," he said.
bademiyansubhanallah
Betwa Sharma/PTI / Copenhagen December 18, 2009, 12:39 IST
Amid last ditch efforts to salvage the climate summit, the Danish
government has come out with a draft accord that skips putting more
onus on developed countries on emission cuts and mitigation targets
but promises $100 billion in finance to developing countries by 2020.
The draft, which may undergo several changes during the negotiations,
reflects the key Indian demand that only action involving
international finances are open to scrutiny.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who held hectic parleys with the Indian
team here, has made it clear that climate change cannot be addressed
by perpetuating the poverty of the developing countries.
Among the world leaders attending the summit are US President Barack
Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.
The draft was circulated after marathon negotiations among key players
that stretched overnight. The document also refers to containing the
global rise in temperature to 2 degrees Celsius before the greenhouse
gases stabilise, in consonance with the Indian position.
The small island states, who are the most vulnerable to global
warming, have demanded that the rise be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius
as compared to pre-industrial times.
Details of the draft also mention the concept of peaking without
mentioning a "peaking year" for carbon emissions.
Peaking year refers to an year when the greenhouse gases emissions in
the atmosphere will reach the highest levels, before stabilising.
The key elements to India's measurability, reportability and
verifiability (MRV) policy are that national communication (NATCOM) of
the actions taken to the United Nations Framework Convention (UNFCCC)
every two years, the second is that all supported actions like using
funds or technology from abroad would be reported and third domestic
MRV would be conducted by international guidelines.
Domestic MRVs will also be exchanged between parties on a voluntary
basis for information purposes only. However, after the discussions
the question remains whether these will be reflected in the text since
negotiations will close shortly.
On the mysterious Danish text, Ramesh said it has "been buried".
India, he said, was worried about the level of international security
and intrusiveness on unsupportive action on which it was not going to
compromise.
On the political declaration, the Minister said the Danish Prime
Minister had stated that it was not a new draft. "I had asked him
whether he has outsourced the preparation of the declaration. He said
he has not outsourced it. It will be based on two texts that are
agreed to by the negotiating groups," he said.
Ramesh said other important issues for India on which he had spoken of
'red lines' in Parliament include the concept of peaking year and the
nature of legally binding commitments.
"We have bigger issues to find out. We should be the last one to be
worried about transparency. We have one of the most transparent
systems in the world. We have one of the most accountable systems in
the world," he said.
bademiyansubhanallah
Cutting emissions drastically is neither easy nor cheap, so the
developed world is looking for scapegoats.
Sunita Narain / New Delhi December 18, 2009, 0:45 IST
As you read this, a deal is possibly being signed at Copenhagen to
save the world from climate change. But be very clear. The agreement
which the world has waited for is not going to be either an effective
deal or a fair deal to reduce emissions in the world. The reason is
clear: The industrialised world needs to cut emissions drastically,
and this is not easy or cheap. So, it is looking for easy answers and,
most of all, in Copenhagen it is looking for ways to blame the failure
of the conference on someone.
This is really the name of the Copenhagen game. No rich country is
really keen to reduce its emissions, but it knows it has an important
public constituency outside the door, which demands more from it.
There is also huge global media interest. No country can afford to be
seen as the naysayer. It must be a climate champion.
But the problem is that the gas is released in the atmosphere because
of our needs for burning fossil fuels to fuel our economy. The agenda
is to reinvent growth without pollution. This is easier said than
done.
The facts are clear: We know emissions from two critical sectors —
energy industry and transport — have increased big time in the
industrialised world, in spite of all the promises and commitments.
Their use of energy is, as yet, on a runaway track. Forget about the
reduction .
If we look at the various options countries have to cut emissions,
there are three broad categories — based on what these will cost and
availability of technology. The first category includes those things
that countries can and should do because they will cost little or even
if the initial capital cost is high, the pay back is quick — negative-
cost options. These include everything nice from changing incandescent
light bulbs to CFL or LED, to tightening standards for appliances we
use in homes, to retrofitting homes to make sure they are insulated
and, of course, all other actions to improve efficiency in industry
and transport.
The actions, which will cost less than $30 (Rs 1,500) per tonne of
carbon saved category are largely found in the land-related sectors —
from stopping deforestation to planting trees to absorb carbon
dioxide. But the third set of actions, which is really the ones that
can reinvent the energy system and combat climate change comes also
with a big ticket price — anywhere between $50-150 (Rs 4,000-7,000)
per tonne of carbon saved. These include solar energy systems, very
high penetration of wind, nuclear, retrofitting and building all coal-
based power plants with a still experimental technology of carbon
capture and storage (literally meaning to take the emitted carbon
dioxide and storing it deep underground).
As yet, for the past 20-odd years of the climate negotiations — from
Rio to Copenhagen — the rich world has looked for small answers to
this big problem. First, it believed that the magic bullet was to
plant biofuels — crops that could fuel the world. It learnt quickly
that there was a trade-off in this business as cost of food
skyrocketed. The next techno-fix was to improve the fuel economy of
each vehicle, till it found that even as cars became more efficient,
people ended up buying more and driving more. The end result was the
same. Emissions increased. Now it is banking on hybrids. It refuses to
learn that the scale of transition will need more than just an
efficiency revolution. It will need a sufficiency goal.
This is why Copenhagen is struggling today to find answers for a
climate deal. The rich world does not want to take on legally binding
emission reductions. It would like to shift the burden on developing
countries. So, China and India become its favourite targets. The fact
is that these countries will emit more in the future. There is no way
around it. They have growing populations and poor people. They need to
provide for development for all.
The climate challenge is evident: The developing countries have the
right to pollute. But there is no space left in the atmosphere for
their emissions. Industrialised countries have disproportionately used
up the space. So, what happens now? Do they merely give up their right
to the ecological space, by taking on burden for emission control now?
Or do they continue to demand that they should be compensated, through
finances and technology, for the space they will not use? This is
really the question on the table. They are not asking for their right
to pollute, but their right to development.
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/sunita-narain-copenhagen/s-non-deal/379882/
chhotemianinshallah
Press Trust Of India
Copenhagen, December 18, 2009
First Published: 19:11 IST(18/12/2009)
Last Updated: 19:57 IST(18/12/2009)
Amid no signs of a breakthrough, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on
Friday said the outcome of the Copenhagen climate summit may fall
short of expectations and warned against any dilution of the
principles of UNFCCC, particularly of "common but differentiated"
responsibilities.
Addressing the crucial final day of the summit, the prime minister
emphasised that India will deliver on its voluntary
target of reducing the emission intensity of GDP growth by around 20
per cent by 2020 as compared to 2005 regardless of
the outcome of the conference.
"We can do even more if a supporting global climate regime is in
place," he told a galaxy of world leaders who
have gathered to seal a climate deal in the Danish capital.
"The outcome (of the summit) may well fall short of our expectations,"
77-year-old Singh said and favoured "subsequent
negotiations towards building a truly global and genuinely
collaborative response to climate change being concluded
during the year 2010."
"We have a difficult task ahead of us. I hope we will play a positive
and constructive role so that we bridge our
differences and come out with a balanced and an equitable outcome in
the coming years. India will not be found wanting
in this," he said.
Singh also pointed out that majority of the countries do not support
any renegotiation or dilution of the principles of
UNFCCC, particularly common but differentiated responsibilities. Amid
no signs of a breakthrough, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Friday
said the outcome of the Copenhagen climate summit may fall short of
expectations and warned against any dilution of the principles of
UNFCCC, particularly of "common but differentiated" responsibilities.
Addressing the crucial final day of the summit, the prime minister
emphasised that India will deliver on its voluntary
target of reducing the emission intensity of GDP growth by around 20
per cent by 2020 as compared to 2005 regardless of
the outcome of the conference.
"We can do even more if a supporting global climate regime is in
place," he told a galaxy of world leaders who
have gathered to seal a climate deal in the Danish capital.
"The outcome (of the summit) may well fall short of our expectations,"
77-year-old Singh said and favoured "subsequent
negotiations towards building a truly global and genuinely
collaborative response to climate change being concluded
during the year 2010."
"We have a difficult task ahead of us. I hope we will play a positive
and constructive role so that we bridge our
differences and come out with a balanced and an equitable outcome in
the coming years. India will not be found wanting
in this," he said.
Singh also pointed out that majority of the countries do not support
any renegotiation or dilution of the principles of
UNFCCC, particularly common but differentiated responsibilities.
Sid Harth
Darryl D'Monte / DNA
Thursday, December 17, 2009 23:56 IST
Mumbai: Everyone at Copenhagen is surprised that despite two years
from the so-called road map charted in Bali for a treaty on climate
change, virtually nothing is on the anvil on the penultimate day of
the UN summit. Many of the interminable meetings are about procedures,
though some relate to substance, at this very late hour.
As the host, the Danish prime minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen appears to
have staked his personal reputation and that of his country in
ensuring that there is a deal of some kind in his capital. The main
stumbling block is none other than the US. It was party to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro in 1992, but refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, the "rules"
which lay down emission targets for industrial countries and penalties
for defaulters.
The Danes and the EU want to leave no stone unturned in bringing the
US on board. Otherwise, it could well be a case of "Hamlet, without
the Prince of Denmark" -- with Obama playing this role. He will be
physically present, but has committed very little by 2020, even though
US long-term targets of 50 per cent reductions in emissions by 2050
converge with the EU's.
What is worrying is that the US and EU have been targeting China for
being a "deal-breaker" by refusing to take on cuts itself as the
world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide; it replaced the US some
months ago. The US Special Envoy on Climate, Todd Stern has made it
clear that China would not be eligible for funding to cope with
climate change.
China's vice-foreign minister He Yafei clarified that financing should
flow to poorer countries and that China wasn't in the queue for doles.
This is a substantial concession, considering that China is far from
being a rich county, however strong its economy is. Its per capita
income is $3,000 and 150 million Chinese live below the poverty line.
China earlier diverted the pressure being exerted on it by the West by
volunteering to take on carbon intensity cuts of 40-45 per cent by
2020 -- reducing the amount of carbon emitted per unit of output,
which forces it to be more energy-efficient. Not to be left behind,
India followed with cuts of about half as much. These concessions,
however, have not assuaged industrial countries which maintain that
China, and to a lesser extent India, are stalling the talks. India,
incidentally, has been conspicuous by its absence at the talks,
despite the arrival of Jairam Ramesh last week-end.
Rasmussen circulated two highly controversial unofficial texts. The
first set different emission limits for developed and developing
countries, turning the UN's painstakingly negotiated earlier position
of countries having "common but differentiated responsibilities" on
its head. By 2050, when everybody agrees, all countries must have
reduced their emissions to prevent a climate catastrophe, the Danish
document posited that developing countries could only emit 1.44 tonnes
per capita, while industrial countries could emit 2.67 tonnes.
It died an unnatural death after G77 and China raised a furore. But
this has not deterred the PM from issuing another draft, also trying
to get major emerging economies to take on some commitments.
Industrial countries concede that these can be voluntary at this
stage, as the Kyoto protocol lays down, but are insisting that these
be subjected to international verification, which India and others
have objected to. In particular, India has to resist the "top-down"
process after every sentence has been painstakingly negotiated over
the past two years.
What we are likely to get in Copenhagen on Friday -- in the unlikely
event that it is extended by a day -- is a political statement signed
by everybody, recognising the imperative to tackle climate change and
to take steps to do so in 2010. There is another meet scheduled in
Bonn in June, where the figures will be worked out, but the more
likely dénouement will be in Mexico, a year from now.
All one can expect by way of funding at this stage is some "kick-
start" money of $10 billion a year from 2010 till 2013. The EU and
Gordon Brown have been offering $100 billion a year by 2020. And even
with the initial funding from next year, and the road ahead from
Copenhagen, there are two caveats.
There is every likelihood that these funds will be diverted from aid.
Jeffery Sachs of Columbia University has cited how when the Group of
20 met in September, rich nations reiterated their 2005 promise to
raise aid to Africa by $30 billion a year between 2005 and 2010.
Nothing of the kind happened, and some countries have reduced their
aid budgets. Secondly, there is no clarity on whether this constitutes
public funding by governments, or private investments and carbon
trading, which are another matter altogether.
All said and done, it is obvious that Copenhagen, which was a once-in-
a-lifetime opportunity to deal not only with environmental problems,
but those of development and equity, has been squandered.
http://www.dnaindia.com/opinion/report_hopes-dashed_1324790
chhotemianinshallah
Chetan Chauhan, Hindustan Times
Copenhagen, December 19, 2009
First Published: 00:29 IST(19/12/2009)
Last Updated: 00:30 IST(19/12/2009)
No future global agreement on climate change can overlook the
principle of equity — that “every citizen of the globe has an equal
entitlement to the global atmospheric space”, said Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh.
The developed world — home to 15 per cent of the world’s population —
emits 45 per cent of the green house gases but has failed to meet
targets of emission reductions agreed under Kyoto Protocol (KP) in
1997.
Singh rejected attempts by the developed world to replace the Kyoto
Protocol. “It should continue to stand as a valid legal instrument.”
During negotiations in Copen-hagen, the developed world tried to
sidestep its own commitments under Kyoto Protocol while pressing the
developing countries to undertake more than their previous
commitments.
The Prime Minister’s statement at the conference reiterated the Indian
position that the country’s economic development could not be
undermined in a treaty, but India will play a “positive and
constructive role” for an “equitable outcome” as negotiations progress
beyond Copenhagen.
“Parties to the protocol should deliver on their solemn commitments
under the protocol. It would go against international public opinion
if we acquiesce in its replacement by a new and weaker set of
commitments,” Singh said.
“Any agreement on climate change should respect the need for
development and growth in developing countries.”
The Prime Minister’s statement soothed concerns that India may be
altering its positions on climate change negotiations.
“It is a positive statement which indicates India’s concern about the
poor who would be affected because of climate change in the African
and small island nations,” said Sirish Sinha, head of climate and
energy section in World Wildlife Fund-India.
“He has also shown how the differences can be resolved in future. The
Prime Minister has stood by the views of the G-77 and other developing
nations,” Kushal Yadav, head of climate division in the Centre for
Science and Environment said.
Back home, the domestic political opinion also welcomed the
statement.
The Left, which has been critical of the government’s perceived
flexibility in accommodating the developed world’s viewpoint described
the statement “positive.”
“After the initial summersault on its stand, the government has come
back to the original position,” said CPM leader Nilotpal Basu.
“We will strain every sinew to arrive at an equitable agreement but
ultimately, you need two hands to clap and unless others try to do the
same we cannot walk the talk alone,” said Congress spokesperson
Abhishek Manu Singhvi.
chhotemianinshallah
PTI 19 December 2009, 12:26am IST
COPENHAGEN: The world summit on climate change went down to the wire
tonight with negotiators guided by heads of government making vigorous
attempts to come out with a deal on fighting the challenge of global
warming.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who was scheduled to leave the Danish
capital by early evening, was back at the conference venue like
President Barack Obama delaying their return home.
They altered their travel plans as UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon
gave a call to world leaders to defer their departures by a day.
Late in the day emerged a fresh draft that spoke of bringing back the
December 2010 deadline for hammering out a legally binding treaty on
fighting global warming. But countries like India and China were
pushing for continuation of the Kyoto Protocol that obliges developed
countries to take major emission cuts within a time-frame.
It is understood that the Australians, the French and the Danish have
sought a review of whole process in 2016, which effectively would
amount to killing the Protocol.
Addressing the high-level segment of the summit, Singh said the Kyoto
Protocol should continue to stand as a valid legal instrument. Parties
to the Protocol should deliver on their solemn commitments under it,
he said.
"It would go against international public opinion if we acquiesce in
its replacement by a new and weaker set of commitments," he said.
chhotemianinshallah
AP 19 December 2009, 05:53am IST
COPENHAGEN: President Barack Obama said the United States, China and
several other countries reached an ``unprecedented breakthrough''
Friday to curb greenhouse gas emissions — including a mechanism to
verify compliance — after a frenzied day of diplomacy at the UN
climate talks.
The agreement, which also includes the developing nations of India,
South Africa and Brazil, requires each country to list the actions
they will take to cut global warming pollution by specific amounts, a
senior Obama administration official said. The official described the
deal on the condition of anonymity because specific details had not
been announced.
The deal reiterates a goal that eight leading industrialized nations
set earlier this year on long-term emission cuts and provides a
mechanism to help poor countries prepare for climate change, the
official said.
But it falls far short of committing any nation to emissions
reductions beyond a general acknowledgment that the effort should
contain global temperatures along the lines agreed to by the leading
economic nations in July.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the talks were extremely
difficult and: ``I must also say that I view the outcome with mixed
feelings.''
A European Union news conference to announce the EU reaction was
postponed and an official said an overall agreement involving those
nations not included in the deal that Obama announced was still being
negotiated.
Obama suggested that the five-nation agreement would be adopted by the
larger summit in its closing hours.
``I am leaving before the final vote,'' he said. ``We feel confident
we are moving in the direction of a final accord.''
If the countries had waited to reach a full, binding agreement, ``then
we wouldn't make any progress,'' Obama said. In that case, he said,
``there might be such frustration and cynicism that rather than taking
one step forward we ended up taking two steps back.''
Obama spent the final scheduled day of the climate talks huddling with
world leaders, including Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, in a bid to
salvage the global warming accord amid deep divisions between rich and
poor nations.
In announcing the five-nation deal, Obama said getting a legally
binding treaty ``is going to be very hard, and it's going to take some
time.''
``We have come a long way, but we have much further to go,'' he said.
The president said there was a ``fundamental deadlock in
perspectives'' between big, industrially developed countries like the
United States and poorer, though sometimes large, developing nations.
Still he said this week's efforts ``will help us begin to meet our
responsibilities to leave our children and grandchildren a cleaner
planet.''
The deal as described by Obama reflects some progress helping poor
nations cope with climate change and getting China to disclose its
actions to address the warming problem.
He said the nations of the world will have to take more aggressive
steps to combat global warming. The first step, he said, is to build
trust between developed and developing countries.
The five-nation agreement includes a method for verifying reductions
of heat-trapping gases, the official said. That was a key demand by
Washington of China, which has resisted international efforts to
monitor its actions.
``It's not what we expected,'' Brazilian Ambassador Sergio Barbosa
Serra said. ``It may still be a way of salvaging something and paving
the way for another a meeting or series of meetings next year.''
Obama had planned to spend only about nine hours in Copenhagen as the
summit wrapped up. But, as an agreement appeared within reach, he
extended his stay by more than six hours to attend a series of
meetings aimed at brokering a deal.
New Zealand's climate change ambassador Adrian Macey called it ``a
modest deal.''
``I see Kyoto as a first step,'' Macey said. ``This another first
step, a global first step.''
More than anything, Macey found the UN process on climate change
``appalling.''
The two-week, 193-nation conference has been plagued by growing
distrust between rich and poor nations. Both sides blamed the other
for failing to take ambitions actions to tackle climate change. At one
point, African delegates staged a partial boycott of the talks.
``We are ready to get this done today but there has to be movement on
all sides to recognize that is better for us to act rather than
talk,'' Obama had said in an address to the conference, insisting on a
transparent way to monitor each nation's pledges to cut emissions.
Abandoning any hope of reaching a comprehensive deal, a group of about
25 countries had sought agreement on a two-page political statement
setting out critical elements, key among them the mobilization of $30
billion in the next three years to help poor countries cope with
climate change and a scaling up to $100 billion a year by 2020.
As negotiations evolved, new drafts of the document, titled the
Copenhagen Accord, emerged with key clauses being inserted, deleted
and reintroduced with new wording.
In the end, the statement set no overall emissions targets for rich
countries.
South Korea's chief negotiator, Rae-Kwon Chung, said one of the
sticking points was a clause saying the combined emissions of rich and
poor countries should be cut in half by 2050. Some developing
countries opposed that target, fearing it would ``define their carbon
space,'' he said, declining to identify them.
With the climate talks in disarray, Obama and Wen met twice — once
privately and once with other world leaders present — in hopes of
sweeping aside some of the disputes that have barred a final deal.
Officials said the two leaders took a step forward in their talk and
directed negotiators to keep working, but the degree of progress was
not immediately clear.
Wen skipped a high-level meeting a second time and sent another envoy
instead.
Later Friday, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton held
talks with European leaders, including British Prime Minister Gordon
Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Merkel. Reporters asked
how negotiations were going as Obama walked into the meeting. ``Always
hopeful,'' he replied.
Many delegates had been looking to China and the U.S. — the world's
two largest carbon polluters — to deepen their pledges to cut their
emissions. But that was not to be.
Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren, negotiating on behalf
of the 27-nation European Union, blamed the impasse on the Chinese for
``blocking again and again,'' and on the U.S. for coming too late with
an improved offer, a long-range climate aid program announced Thursday
by Clinton.
The U.S. got its share of blame. ``President Obama was not very
proactive. He didn't offer anything more,'' said delegate Thomas
Negints, from Papua New Guinea. He said his country had hoped for
``more on emissions, put more money on the table, take the lead.''
Obama may eventually become known as ``the man who killed
Copenhagen,'' said Greenpeace U.S. Executive Director Phil Radford.
Money to help poor nations cope with climate change and shift to clean
energy seemed to be where negotiators could claim most success.
Pollution cuts and the best way to monitor those actions remained
unresolved.
China and the U.S had sought to give the negotiations a boost Thursday
with an announcement and a concession.
Clinton said Washington would press the world to come up with a
climate aid fund amounting to $100 billion a year by 2020, a move that
was quickly followed by an offer from China to open its reporting on
actions to reduce carbon emissions to international review.
chhotemianinshallah
Nitin Sethi & Simit Bhagat , TNN 19 December 2009, 03:54am IST
COPENHAGEN: It has become a game of drafts and texts at the climate
talks. In an unprecedented turn of events, heads of state of the most
powerful countries in the world, heavyweights like Barack Obama,
Nicolas Sarkozy, Gordon Brown and Kevin Rudd are sitting with their
developing country partners with pencil, rubber and paper to fight
over every word and phrase in the texts. These words and phrases will
decide how the energy resources will be shared by the 192 countries in
coming years, while keeping climate change objectives in mind.
Here’s a primer on the complex game of textual gymnastics being played
out in the Danish capital.
To begin with, the formal talks began on two tracks: the Kyoto
Protocol for emission reduction commitments by the industrialised
countries, and a long-term agreement for every country’s actions. The
two track approach had been approved under the Bali Action Plan in
2007.
But as talks progressed through 2008 and 2009, the industrialised
countries refused to put their targets for emission reduction under
the Kyoto Protocol and instead began demanding that everyone take
obligations to cut emissions by different degrees under one new single
instrument. Instead of using simple language to demand emission
reductions from developing countries, over the two years, they began
innovating on language, asking for emerging economies to peak their
emissions in near future, for them to put their domestic actions up
for scrutiny effectively turning voluntary actions into international
obligations.
As battlelines got entrenched on December 7, the final round began at
Copenhagen. But the Danish hosts began to sidestep the two tracks and
brought out texts from their stable suggesting all that the developing
countries had for long opposed as being in contravention of the UN
convention and the Bali Action Plan.
With BASIC — China, India, South Africa and Brazil — putting their
full force behind G-77 even as some smaller countries broke away, the
Danish government stalled the two-track negotiations while planning to
force through a political statement towards the end of the fortnight,
which contained clauses inimical to the interests of poor nations.
With the industrialised countries unable to dictate terms within the
formal two tracks, the political statement or accord was meant to
become an overarching document to which the final reports of the two
tracks would get appended. The statement, being endorsed at the
highest level, would naturally take precedence over every other formal
report. It became a smooth way to hijack the negotiations at the last
moment.
Developing countries protested throughout that the attempt by the host
to get the backing of select countries for their heads of states’
political statement was undemocractic and devious.
The Danes finally did get the draft out to a select group of 26
countries including the biggies from the developing countries like
China and India. But as they held meetings through the day, the closed
door affair had turned into a slugfest.
bademiyansubhanallah
Amitabh Sinha
Posted: Saturday , Dec 19, 2009 at 1129 hrs
Copenhagen:
The one positive for India from the failed Copenhagen summit is the
bonding it developed with China.After two-weeks of almost never-ending
disagreements, the climate change conference in Copenhagen has
produced a political accord that was weak and vague, devoid of the
most basic targets, and, most importantly, unsure of being accepted by
everyone.
The Copenhagen Accord, as it has been called, was thrashed out in a
closed door meeting involving the United States and the four major
developing economies – India, China, Brazil and South Africa -- that
go together in the name of BASIC group. China and the United States
are the world’s top two emitters of greenhouse gases. The heads of
states of these countries, as also many others, had to delay their
departures from Copenhagen as a deal agreeable to all remained elusive
even on the last day of the conference.
The other countries were not involved in finalizing the accord, and
because of this there is a real danger that many countries might
refuse to accept it. India, whose Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was
part of the closed door meeting, said it would sign on the accord.
The accord, as of now, is only a draft and has to be adopted by
consensus by the 193 members of the UNFCCC to come into effect. If
adopted, it will form the mandate to continue the negotiating process
into next year and finalise a legally-binding international treaty --
something that was originally planned to happen in Copenhagen itself.
Several countries, including the European Union which too was
surprisingly left out of the consultation process, have already
expressed their disappointment with the accord, mainly because it is a
completely sterile document.
“This is what we have feared all along… that a deal will be super-
imposed by the United States with the help of the Danish hosts on all
the countries,” said Sudanese leader Lumumba Di-Aping, speaking on
behalf of the African countries.
There are no references in the accord to any targets for emission
reductions by the rich countries, not even a range. The only goals
outlined in the accord are the desire to keep the rise in global
temperatures to below 2 degree Celsius and support for a US$ 30
billion fund over the next three years for the developing countries.
It also includes aims to create medium-term financial mechanism that
will be able to provide US$100 billion dollars every year to the
developing countries from the year 2020.
Even US President Barack Obama, the chief architect of the deal,
admitted that the actual outcome was a poor comparison to what was
expected from Copenhagen.
“The progress is not enough. We have come a long way, but we have much
further to go,” he said.
Central to the deal is the inclusion of a commitment from the BASIC
countries, all of which are rapidly growing emitters, to allow
“international consultations and analysis under clearly defined
guidelines” of their voluntary national actions.
The US has been extremely keen to introduce some sort of international
verification mechanism for the domestic actions of the developing
countries, something that India and China have been strongly
resisting.
Comments (2) |
Copenhagen
By: DARVAN | 19-Dec-2009
As anticipated,no meaningful outcome has left us bewildered at the
caliber of world leaders to forge any consensus. Deep divisions reveal
a world lost and doomed into self deception and getting paid by the
tax payer to uphold Democracy. Maybe the most successful outcome was
the emergence of CHINA as the contender for world prominence through
proletarian doctrines. A country that holds the 95% of the worlds Rare-
Earths, and direct 60% of the stimulus monies through alternate wind
energy, deserves that mantle.
copen hagen
By: yohan | 19-Dec-2009
thanks dr singh. another us brokered deal blindly accepted by india
when all other developing countries and EU did not approve it. this is
another example of dr singh's chemistry with US. if it is brokered by
US, dr singh is bound to accept it.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/india-us-accept-copenhagen-accord-eu-others-still-unsure/556442/0
bademiyansubhanallah
V K Tripathi, Hindustan Times
Patna, December 19, 2009
First Published: 10:25 IST(19/12/2009)
Last Updated: 10:31 IST(19/12/2009)
The Ghariyal or alligator, the vanishing reptile of the Indian waters,
is now under the scanner of scientists and environmentalists.
A team of scientists from across the globe, representing different
organisations, will set out on a navigational survey of the Gandak
river from Triveni on the Indo-Nepal border on December 25 to study
and map habitat of ghariyals along the 200- kilometre stretch to the
river's confluence with the Ganga near Hajipur. Ghariyals have been
declared critically endangered species by the International Union for
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) in 2008.
The IUCN, the lead agency-the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) of India and
other organisations such as Wildlife Trust of India, Multi Ghariyal
Task Force, Department of Forests and Environment, Bihar and Tilka
Manjhi Bhagalpur University (TMBU) are part of the joint research
project.
During the three-week journey, the scientists would also study the
status of dolphin, turtle and otter during the three-week trip being
undertaken on country boats equipped with high-power cameras and other
instruments needed to assess water chemistry.
Chief Wildlife Warden, BA Khan, told Hindustan Times that the
recommendations of the study would help shifting the freshly bred
ghariyals in captivity in Sanjay Gandhi Biological Park to natural
habitats. Director of Valmiki Tiger Reserve Project, JP Gupta added
that the findings would help maintain the biodiversity in the river
eco-systems of Bihar.
The project team leader, Dr Sunil Chaudhary of TMBU, said depleting
numbers of ghariyals inhabiting the Gandak and Chambal rivers was an
issue of concern to the WWF and other organizations. It would be the
first holistic approach to study their status in Bihar, he said.
He said unchecked sand and pebble mining in the Narayani - the other
name of the Gandak- had pushed this majestic species onto the verge of
extinction. Ghariyal’s prefer uneven riverbeds with wide space for
basking which Gandak and Chambal provide to them. Only in odd
situation like floods, they moved to the Ganga.
Fishermen also used to kill the alligators for their skin used by
leather manufacturing factories in Uttar Pradesh.
The study team would include Dr Asgar Nawab of WWF, Dr Samir of
Wildlife Trust of India, B Basu of Multi-Ghariyal Task Force and
representatives of IUCN that include expert on aquatic life, Rom
Whittaker.
bademiyansubhanallah
20 Dec 2009, 0236 hrs IST, Huang Jing,
President Obama’s visit to China in November 15-18 and Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh’s visit to the United States in November 22-26 drew
worldwide attention. Although the critics said that the visits were
more symbolic in nature, few would question their far-reaching impact
on reshaping the bilateral relationships between America and the two
rising global powers: China and India.
Given the geopolitical situation in the region and America’s
continuous predominance in regional security, an inevitable question,
and indeed a shared concern, for Beijing and New Delhi is that how the
two bilateral relationships will affect each other. In other words,
will the development in the US-China relations help to promote, or
undermine, the US-India relations as well as India’s national
interests, and vice versa?
It is hard to imagine that the trilateral US-India-China relationship
would evolve into the kind of “strategic triangle” we witnessed in the
1970s and 1980s between America, China, and the former Soviet Union.
No doubt that similar geopolitical consideration still carries certain
weight in the thinking of American, Indian and Chinese strategists.
But the present US-China, US-India and India-China relationships are
not, and will not be, defined by an irreconcilable, ideology-based
confrontation that had existed between the United States and the
former Soviet Union. Despite differences between their political
systems, cultures, levels of economic development, and policymaking
processes, the drivers of the three pairs of bilateral relationship
are strategic interests rather than ideological faith, and the leaders
in Washington, Beijing and New Delhi are realistic and pragmatic in
their decision making.
Moreover, the growing economic integration, and hence interdependence,
has made the zero-sum game between the three countries self-defeating.
A bilateral relationship — be it the US-China, US-India or India-China
— against the third power would surely damages all parties.
Still, there is a serious concern in New Delhi that the Obama
Administration’s overtures toward China could have a negative impact
on US-India relations. The worry is not necessarily that a strong US-
China relationship would be achieved at India’s expense, but that
Obama’s China-first approach would somehow downgrade the importance of
US-India relations and, therefore, undermine India’s geopolitical
position on the one hand, and weaken India’s hand in the handling of
the other important bilateral relationships, such as India-China and
India-Pakistan relations, on the other hand.
But the US-China and US-India relationships are based on different
fundamentals. And these differences have decisive and far-reaching
implications in the shaping and development of the bilateral
relationships among the three powers.
The current US-China relationship is essentially based on the
irrevocable economic interdependence. One of the most significant
consequences of China’s “peaceful rise,” achieved through China’s
integration in the world economic system, is that Beijing is now
Washington’s largest creditor. With over two trillion US dollars in
China’s foreign reserves and half of it being invested in America
(mostly by buying the US debt), the United States and China have
virtually hijacked each other’s well-being with the greenbacks–China
could cut off the live-support to America’s economy by not buying but
selling the US debt; and the collapse of the US dollars would do
irreparable damage to China’s economy and political stability.
While this is indeed a profound progress from the situation in which
the two superpowers (the US and former Soviet Union) hijacked the
world peace with nuclear warheads, such interdependence has made the
stability in US-China relations critical to world peace and
prosperity.
Nowadays, all the issues that involves America and China’s interests –
be it the trade balance, currency, energy, environment, proliferation,
or
terrorism – have serious global implications. And none of these issues
can be solved (or managed) without meaningful cooperation and
coordination between Washington and Beijing. It is this reality that
has given rise to the G-2 expectation.
The US-India relationship, on the other hand, is based on geopolitical
necessity and strategic expectations despite some substantial
differences between the two countries on issues such as climate
changes, food security, nuclear proliferation, and regional security
arrangements. It is necessary for Washington and New Delhi to maintain
a stable and constructive relationship for two shared strategic
goals.
Firstly, both countries are facing a pressing security threat from
similar sources: the fundamentalists headquartered in Afghanistan and
Pakistan and, more importantly, the instability and even state-failure
of Pakistan. Thus, they need to make joint effort to subdue the
fundamentalist forces in the region and stabilize Pakistan.
Moreover, China’s rapid rise has dramatically changed the regional
strategic balance that embodies vital interests of both America and
India in the region. Such a dramatic change in strategic balance, as
history teaches us, can destabilise the region, hence endanger
international security and peace, including China’s own, unless being
managed carefully with joint effort. A solid bilateral US-India
relationship is essential for the maintenance of the strategic balance
in the region.
Strategically, America and India do not perceive each other as a
(potential) rivalry or competitor, not just because of similar
democratic systems, but because of positive strategic expectations.
Given the shared geopolitical and strategic concerns of the two
countries, the Indians expect that America plays a supportive role in
India’s rise. Meanwhile, the Americans expect that India rises up as a
development model that would add strength to the existing
international system that is based on market economy and led by
democracies.
Indeed, what differentiates the US-India relationship is the existence
of strategic trust and shared geopolitical needs. As such, this
relationship is fundamental for the US strategy and approach to the
region. This is why, contrary to some pundits’ assertion that US’s
overtures towards China would undermine the US-India relationship, the
Obama administration laid out red carpet all the way when Prime
Minister Dr Singh came to Washington in late November. After all, a
strong US-China relationship needs to be balanced by an equally strong
US-India relationship, not just because of geopolitics, but because
the United States needs to keep its strategic options open.
Huang Jing, Visiting Professor, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy,
National University of Singapore
chhotemianinshallah
Agencies
Posted: Sunday , Dec 20, 2009 at 1430 hrs
China, the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, has said its
Premier Wen Jiabao adopted a "flexible" attitude on key issues at the
Copenhagen climate talks and played a "pivotal" role in ensuring a
"positive" outcome by coordinating with leaders like Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh.
The UN's Conference of Parties (COP) on climate change was an
important opportunity to boost international cooperation in combating
global warming, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said.
Under the joint efforts of all parties, the conference yielded
"significant and positive" outcome in three aspects, Yang, who
accompanied Wen to the climate conference, said. First, it firmly
upheld the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities"
set by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and Kyoto
Protocol. Second, it made a solid step forward in promoting developed
countries' binding emissions cuts and developing countries' voluntary
mitigation actions, he said.
Third, it produced important consensus on key issues of long-term
global emissions cut targets, funding and technology support to
developing countries and transparency, Yang said. He noted that Wen
had a sincere and in-depth exchange of views on key areas of the
climate change talks with a number of world leaders like Prime
Minister Singh, which enhanced mutual understanding and paved the way
for positive outcome of the summit.
Wen had a telephonic conversation with Singh before they left for
Copenhagen. He also held similar telephonic conversations with leaders
of Brazil, South Africa, Ethiopia, Denmark, Germany and Britain as
well as the UN chief. Wen and Singh also held a bilateral meeting
hours before the commencement of the climate summit, coordinating the
stand of the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) bloc.
During his meeting with Singh, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da
Silva and South African President Jacob Zuma, Wen stressed that BASIC
nations were developing countries and shared common interests, stances
and goals, adding they should further promote solidarity, enhance
coordination and steadily speak for developing countries and in their
best interests.
At his meeting with US President Barack Obama, German Chancellor
Angela Merkel, Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and British
Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Wen urged developed countries to
practically fulfil their promises and obligations and enhance mutual
trust.
Yang said the Chinese Premier adopted a principled but flexible
attitude, broke his back to move the climate talks forward on the
right track and played a pivotal role in the climate talks, Yang was
quoted as saying by the official Xinhua news agency.
China had set the new target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions per
unit of GDP by 40-45 per cent by 2020 from the 2005 level. "The
Copenhagen conference was not a destination but a new beginning. Each
country should comply with the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities, honour their word and fulfil their obligations,"
Yang said.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/wens-talks-with-singh-others-led-to-positive-cop-outcome/556769/0
bademiyansubhanallah
Press Trust Of India
New Delhi, December 20, 2009
First Published: 12:10 IST(20/12/2009)
Last Updated: 12:11 IST(20/12/2009)
The US-brokered climate deal with India and three other emerging
economies reached at the fag end of the Copenhagen summit is
"disastrous" for the world as it will allow rich countries to increase
emissions, the Centre for Science and Technology claimed on Sunday.
"The accord eliminates the distinction between developed and
developing countries, prevents effective action to curb global warming
and fatally undermines efforts to renew the Kyoto Protocol," CSE
spokesperson Souparno Banerjee said.
After a consensus for an ambitious deal to tackle climate change
eluded the 12-day Conference of Parties at Copenhagen, Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh and US President Barack Obama delayed their departures
by several hours to hammer out a face-saving deal that asks both
developed and developing nations to set their emission targets by
February 2010.
"The accord will not only be disastrous for the climate, but will also
freeze the inequity in the world for perpetuity," said CSE director
Sunita Narain, who attended the discussions at Copenhagen.
"It agrees that developing countries' actions, which are not supported
through international finance and technology also be open to
international consultation and analysis, which could become a backhand
way of bringing in international commitments on countries like India,"
she said in a statement.
chhotemianinshallah
Amit Bhattacharya, TNN 21 December 2009, 01:04am IST
NEW DELHI: A report in a British newspaper has accused IPCC chief
Rajendra K Pachauri of making a fortune from his links with ‘‘carbon
trading’’ companies.
Apart from listing the number of companies, banks and institutes with
which the IPCC chairman is associated, the report in The Telegraph of
London alleges that Pachauri’s The Energy Research Institute (TERI)
continues to have ‘‘close links’’ with the Tata Group (which set up
the institute) and that this relationship has helped the latter in its
green and carbon trading businesses.
Reacting to the report, Pachauri told TOI: ‘‘These are a pack of lies
from people who are getting desperate. They want to go after the guy
whose voice is being heard. I haven’t pocketed a single penny from my
association with companies and institutes. All honoraria that I get
goes to TERI and to its Light a Billion Lives campaign for reaching
solar power to people without electricity. All my dealings are totally
above board.’’
Pachauri pointed out that the previous IPCC chairman was in the World
Bank and the one before that was a professor. ‘‘Can you then say the
university benefsited from his association with IPCC? The people who
have flung these charges are part of the same vested interest group
which hacked the server of UK’s East Anglia University. They are
getting desperate because the world is now serious about moving away
from fossil fuels. I want to ask them how much money they spent in the
operation? Hacking a server is a costly exercise,’’ he said.
On TERI’s links with the Tata group, Pachauri said, ‘‘Our ties ended
when Darbari Seth, who was on our board, died in 1999. We haven’t
received a single penny from Tatas for years and have no ties with
them.’’ He added that TERI submits its yearly accounts to the
government under Section 12 of the income tax law. ‘‘We fully comply
with all government laws,’’ he said.
Pachauri, who recently took up the post of the head of the Climate and
Energy Institute at Yale University, said the appointment was held up
for a while because he had insisted that his salary be credited to
TERI. ‘‘My conscience is clear and that is why I am cool towards these
allegations.’’
On whether he intends to take legal action against the report,
Pachauri said he hadn’t made up his mind. ‘‘Action against these
people only gives dignity to these guys,’’ he added.
bademiyansubhanallah
Briefs Sonia Gandhi on climate conference talks
Jairam Ramesh.
New Delhi: Fresh from the world climate change talks which reached a
last-minute non-binding deal, Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh
will make a statement in the Rajya Sabha on Monday.
Mr. Ramesh on his return home after attending the nearly two-week-long
193-nation conference in Copenhagen met Congress president Sonia
Gandhi on Sunday and briefed her on the provisional deal cobbled
together by a small group of countries, including the U.S., India and
China for fighting global warming.
“I will make a statement in the Rajya Sabha at 12 noon tomorrow
[Monday],” Mr. Ramesh told PTI here on Sunday, when his comments were
sought on the government’s strategy in Parliament post-Copenhagen
accord. He declined to give any details.
Mr. Ramesh, who was part of the Indian negotiating team, earlier said
that it was “a good deal.”
Indian officials also noted that the U.S.-brokered deal addressed
India’s concerns adequately, although some improvements could be made.
“The red lines have been met,” Prime Minister’s climate change envoy
Shyam Saran said, noting that India did not have to compromise on any
of its fundamental stands on the issue.
The Minister is understood to have taken the view that the accord was
the first good step, it was good for India, the world and good for
Earth.
Mr. Ramesh had earlier said the Indian side “had very fruitful
discussions with U.S. President Barack Obama” and that “India has a
good deal.”
At Copenhagen, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said there was no
question of India making its commitments legally binding.
“The Prime Minister also said there was no question of making our
unilateral commitments internationally legally binding, we will
reflect them in an international agreement in a suitable way but we
are not going to take any internationally legally binding commitments.
That is simply not on the cards,” Mr. Ramesh said in Copenhagen,
quoting the Prime Minister as having said. Mr. Obama appreciated Dr.
Singh’s statement, the Minister said.
Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), meanwhile described the accord as “an agreement that
will really not be the final word.” — PTI
Monday, Dec 21, 2009
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version
http://www.hindu.com/2009/12/21/stories/2009122154161000.htm
bademiyansubhanallah
Special Correspondent
NEW DELHI: The Communist Party of India (Marxist) on Sunday said India
should press for deep and immediate emission cuts by the U.S. and
other developed countries, and work with other developing countries to
ensure sustainable development and equitable terms in any final
treaty.
In a statement, the party Polit Bureau said while the Copenhagen
climate change conference ended without meeting its goal of a legally
binding agreement for the second commitment period of the Kyoto
Protocol, a complete failure was averted by the promise of such an
agreement in 2010.
Though the Copenhagen accord has no legal status and would not bind
countries, it at least provides some way of keeping future
negotiations going along the current twin tracks.
“Without this, the failure of the conference could have meant the
collapse of the Climate Treaty and the Kyoto framework. However, this
accord is extremely weak in terms of deep and immediate emission cuts
by developed countries that are required to tackle climate change,”
the statement said.
The party described the accord as “deeply ambitious” with several
loopholes and the possibility of different interpretations,
particularly with regard to emission cuts by developing countries, and
funds and technology transfers. It had warned the government that
unilateral concessions, before the negotiations, and without
conditional linkages to deep cuts by developed countries, would not
yield results. “This is indeed what has happened.”
Bid to kill Kyoto Protocol
Charging that an agreement in Copenhagen was made impossible by the
positions and tactics of the U.S. and other developed countries, it
said, that from the first day to the last, the U.S. and its allies
tried their utmost to kill the Kyoto Protocol, negate the cornerstone
principle of differentiation between the industrialised and the
developing countries, and pressure the developing countries to take on
the major burden of reducing global emissions.
“Their inability to achieve these aims was due to the stiff and united
resistance put up by the developing countries, a resistance which was
one of the few positives in Copenhagen.”
Monday, Dec 21, 2009
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version
http://www.hindu.com/2009/12/21/stories/2009122159431000.htm
chhotemianinshallah
The Financial Express
Posted: Monday, Dec 21, 2009 at 2101 hrs IST
Updated: Monday, Dec 21, 2009 at 2101 hrs IST
First, the good news. While only one head of state was in attendance
to sign the Kyoto protocol, over 160 of them were present to negotiate
the Copenhagen Accord—a clear indication that climate change has moved
centrestage in global policymaking. While the Kyoto protocol imposed
obligations only on developed countries that ratified it, the
Copenhagen Accord brings both into purview, both the US and China—the
world’s leading greenhouse gas emitters. Both developing and developed
countries have moved from entrenched positions. India and China have
been persuaded to set and achieve peaking emissions, albeit on
principles of historical equity. Following on the same principles,
developed countries have agreed to provide financial resources,
technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of
adaptation action in developing countries. Such mitigation actions
will be subject to international measurement, in return for which
developed countries will mobilise $100 billion a year by 2020 to meet
developing countries’ historically justified demands. Perhaps a good
indicator of the fact that there were good intentions all around is
the difficulty of isolating Copenhagen villains. The usual suspects
didn’t do too badly, after all. UK’s Gordon Brown came up with the
$100-billion figure. The US President personally pushed the envelope
to reach some kind of agreement. Indian and Chinese leaders refrained
from becoming obstructionist, even while protecting their turfs. There
are murmurs that the BASICs forced everyone else to accept a draft
negotiated behind closed doors as fait accompli, but how different was
this from Kyoto—where the Annex I countries drove the entire show? At
Copenhagen, the smallest of countries like Tuvalu and Maldives were
given a hearing. Their special grievances found a solid window of
attention.
Next, let’s acknowledge the many disappointments. Let’s begin with
Tuvalu and Maldives. The Alliance of Small Island States’ head has
emphasised how member countries are living on the front lines of
climate change. In November, the Maldives President actually held an
underwater cabinet meeting to emphasise why it wants the world’s
policymakers to commit to holding the rise in global temperatures at
1.5 degrees Celsius instead of the 2 degrees commitment currently
supported by the major economies and the Copenhagen Accord. But such a
commitment would mean, according to the International Energy Agency,
vastly deeper carbon dioxide cuts and up to $10.5 trillion extra in
energy-related investment by 2030. Such largesse has simply not been
on the table at Copenhagen, where even legally binding...
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/fe-editorial-half-degree-of-separation/556792/
chhotemianinshallah
Dhiraj Nayyar
Posted: Monday, Dec 21, 2009 at 2104 hrs IST
Updated: Monday, Dec 21, 2009 at 2104 hrs IST
It was always going to be unrealistic to expect a legally binding
international treaty on climate change from the just concluded meet in
Copenhagen. But the fact that countries are still willing to talk
about all the sticky issues—emission cuts, financing and international
monitoring—in Bonn and Mexico City next year is an encouraging sign.
However, if the talks are to make significant headway in the next
year, certain key countries have to, quite literally, do a lot of
homework. Unless governments are able to evolve a broad consensus on
climate change mitigation within their borders, they are unlikely to
be able to sign on to binding agreements. And the plain truth of the
matter is that most of the countries that mattered were not yet ready
(in terms of a political consensus at home) to make significant
binding commitments.
Interestingly, the agreement that was ‘taken note of’ at the final
plenary session in Copenhagen was essentially the text agreed upon by
the wavering, unready countries—US, China, India, Brazil and South
Africa (US-BASIC). The EU, which has actually taken most of the action
to mitigate climate change to date, was left out of the final
negotiations, as were the countries which stand to lose the most from
no action being taken to mitigate climate change (some of the G77
countries).
It is safe to assume that the fate of future talks also depends on the
positions that the US-BASIC group takes. And each of these countries
needs to go back home to settle questions about how much, at what
cost, and in what time after a process of deeper consultations and
political outreach to key constituencies at home.
The homework will be different for each of these countries. Let’s take
the US first. President Obama needs to first convince a clear majority
of Americans that climate change is for real—the number of doubters
still remains significant. Then he must convince them that the US will
need to do more than countries like China and India, given the gap in
incomes. Even if he can win those arguments, there remains the even
tougher bit of convincing people that they must incur a cost by
consuming less or paying more for ‘cleaner products’.(Clean power will
cost more than dirty coal, for example.) Also, this cost will be
incurred to benefit a future generation. A difficult task,
particularly when a country is coming out of a serious economic
crisis, but then good leadership is about persuading. He will also
need to work on specific interest groups, like the manufacturing
industry, which believes that all of this will shift manufacturing
advantage to places like China and India permanently. On this, Obama’s
task ought to be easier—the US has no manufacturing advantage even
now. In fact, a move to new cleantech may actually help it regain an
edge in manufacturing.
In developing countries like China and India, it will be impossible to
convince every citizen to consume less and pay more, in general. While
these are indeed the fastest growing economies in the world, they are
still in the low-income bracket. Hundreds of millions of people in
both China and India (and millions in the case of Brazil and South
Africa) need to be pulled out of poverty as quickly as possible. That
means they will consume more, emit more and nobody can tell them to
pay more or consume less without a political backlash.
But that’s only one constituency of the poor. The BASIC countries need
to convince their sizeable middle classes and industries to get
serious about cutting emissions. There is no reason that China and
India should subsidise the consumption of fossil fuels by the middle
classes, but they do. There is every reason to strive for cleaner
sources of energy than coal. In all likelihood there will be financial
transfers from the West to help finance these. And industry in
emerging economies can actually leap to the next technological
frontier if they beat the West to the development of cleaner tech.
Industry needs to be persuaded to see climate change mitigation as an
opportunity, not a threat.
Back home, the government made a sensible, but delayed, move by giving
up the per capita emissions position to move to emissions intensity of
GDP. Now, more political weight should be put behind this position.
And let’s be a little more flexible on international monitoring and
verification. We seem to get unnecessarily sensitive about sovereignty—
a loud minority had reacted similarly to the Indo-US nuclear deal.
Instead of resisting the idea, we should focus on how to make the
monitoring mechanism independent and credible. In exchange for
monitoring, we should press the US and industrialised countries for
deeper cuts.
The stakes are high. If the US-BASIC group of countries in particular
don’t begin their homework now, they will certainly flunk the test,
and fail the planet, in Mexico City in December 2010.
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/column-on-climate-now-do-the-homework/556793/0
bademiyansubhanallah
Arvind Panagariya, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Global Economy and
Development
The Brookings Institution
December 21, 2009 —
Judging by his public pronouncements, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
had set two distinct goals for himself when deciding his strategy for
Copenhagen negotiations. First, he wanted to leave no room for the
western media and politicians to paint India as obstructionist as had
repeatedly happened during the as Doha negotiations. Second, being
firmly of the view that in the long run India will suffer
disproportionately more from catastrophes resulting form global
warming, he wanted to cut a deal that would lead to major reductions
in carbon emissions worldwide.
To avoid any impression that India was less than serious in its
efforts to reach an agreement, Singh went so far as to state in his
maiden speech in Copenhagen that India will deliver on its promise of
bringing down its 2005 emission intensity by 20 percent by 2020 even
if an agreement were not reached in Copenhagen. In the end, he was
successful in impressing upon President Barrack Obama that India had
offered to do more than what a poor, vulnerable country could afford.
Obama applauded India for voluntarily committing to “very significant
mitigation” effort. Reminding his audience at Copenhagen that India
has hundreds of millions of people living in abject poverty and
without electricity, Obama stated in his speech, “For them, even
voluntarily to say, we are going to reduce carbon emissions relative
to our current ways of doing business by X percent is an important
step. And we applaud them for that." Singh had scored a decisive
public relations victory—after this endorsement by Obama, no newspaper
or TV commentator would dare point a finger at India as the
obstruction to an agreement.
Singh’s success in scoring a diplomatic victory was matched by his
failure in achieving a deal that would credibly arrest global warming,
however. He had staked much on being able to persuade the United
States to agree to an ambitious agreement in Copehagen, committing
India to ever-higher levels of mitigation on a voluntary basis. From
his initial position that given the country’s low per-capita
emissions, India should not be subjected to any mitigation
commitments, Singh went on step-by-step to raise the level of his
country’s voluntary commitments. First came his promise not to let
per-capita emissions of India ever to exceed the average of per-capita
emissions of industrial countries. Then, he proceeded to commit to the
goal of holding the average temperature increases around the globe to
2°C. This was followed by the announcement of eight national missions
aimed at mitigation, which included plans to introduce building codes,
tighter auto emission standards, increase in the share of green
sources of energy to 20 percent by 2020 and even a cap and trade
program for selected sectors. Finally, in the last week prior to the
beginning of the Copenhagen summit, he committed India to cutting 2005
emission intensity by 20 percent by 2020.
As a part of as yet non-binding Copenhagen Accord, Singh also accepted
the U.S. demand for submission of mitigation plans to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Additionally, India
will submit a progress report on mitigation every two years that will
be subject to “international consultations and analysis under clearly
defined guidelines.” In principle, this provision can be seen as a
first step towards the conversion of what are currently “voluntary”
steps towards mitigation into internationally mandated commitment that
Singh and his environment minister have promised not to accept under
any circumstances.
These progressively rising levels of concessions have not led to any
improvement in the offer by the United States, which currently stands
at cutting it’s the country’s 1990 emissions by merely 3 percent by
2020. This commitment compares rather unfavorably with the commitment
to cut 1990 emissions by 7 percent by 2012 under the 1997 Kyoto
Protocol that the United States had signed but refused to ratify. One
may argue that the United States has put on the table financing for
adaptation and mitigation by the developing countries as a part of the
Copenhagen Accord. But the proposed level of funding at $30 billion in
the first three years, which must be spread over more than 150
countries, is tiny. More importantly, much of this funding is likely
to go to the least developed and island countries. It is unlikely
India will reap any benefit from this fund.
This meager U.S. response testifies to Singh’s failure to achieve his
second objective. Unless Singh is able to persuade the United States
(and other industrial countries) to undertake far more ambitious cuts
in emissions under a final agreement that is to succeed the Copenhagen
Accord, his own commitments on behalf of India could prove costly to
his country. On one hand, he will not have achieved the goal of
avoiding environmental catastrophes and on the other, he would have
ended up compromising growth and poverty alleviation. Under existing
technologies, cuts in emissions or their growth are almost sure to
translate into cuts in energy consumption or its growth, which would
in turn adversely impact India’s GDP growth and poverty alleviation.
It may be recalled that India is a poor but rapidly growing economy.
Its ability to withstand natural disasters in the next two to three
decades depends crucially on its ability to sustain and accelerate its
current growth rate of 8 to 9 percent. Such growth would allow the
citizens to access shelters that can withstand cold, heat and rain and
impart them with the means of rapid transportation and communications.
The income increases will also place more resources in the hands of
the government to build bridges, roads and dikes to help deal with
natural disasters more effectively. In so far as mitigation
commitments compromise growth, they will undermine the ability of
Indians to withstand natural disasters that would occur in the next
two to three decades regardless of emission levels around the globe.
Prime Minister Singh will need to carefully weigh this cost of India’s
own mitigation commitments against the benefits to be reaped from
improved commitment offers from industrial countries in the
negotiations for a final climate accord. He must remember that given
just 4 percent share in global emissions, mitigation by India by
itself has virtually no impact on future global warming. His
commitments will acquire value only if major emitters countries sign
on to an ambitious mitigation agreement.
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/1221_copenhagen_india_panagariya.aspx
bademiyansubhanallah
TNN 22 December 2009, 01:24am IST
NEW DELHI: Even though the final document in Copenhagen contained no
legally binding commitments by anybody, US officials are claiming the
right to unilaterally verify or review what India and other countries
are doing.
Forced to defend the deal, White House senior advisor David Axelrod
told CNN that the Copenhagen Accord would allow US verification. "Now
China and India have set goals. We are going to be able to review what
they are doing. We are going to be able to challenge them if they do
not meet those goals," Axelrod said.
While this was probably intended to keep the enraged constituencies of
US labour unions at bay, who had insisted that Barack Obama come back
with a commitment from India and China for carbon cuts and their
verification, these statements will only fuel a fire in countries like
China and India. Besides, the government will be asked to come clean
on whether the Copenhagen document was another nail in the Kyoto
Protocol coffin.
The developed countries have tried all means to junk the protocol, and
introduce a new framework where the developing countries take on some
of the burden.
The US assertion is sure to figure in the debate in Rajya Sabha on
Copenhagen text on Tuesday. Many political parties and NGOs have
already come out against it, with the Left citing it as yet another
instance of government succumbing to pressure from the US.
They are sure to cite Axelrod's remarks as vindication. "This was not
the end of the road. The end of the road would have been the complete
collapse of those talks. This is a great step forward," Axelrod said.
Obama called it a meaningful beginning while British PM Gordon Brown
lashed out at China and its friends.
The European nations, who were ultimately left out of the final deal-
making, leaving Obama and the BASIC bloc (Brazil, South Africa, India
and China) to strike the last bargain, are looking for more ways to
get around the final text. In fact, over the next few months, the
world will see a growing clamour to remove climate change negotiations
from the UNFCCC and move it to a G20-like framework.
Sitaram Yechury of CPM, accusing the government of "shifting
goalposts", said there was no clarity in the accord. "The accord is
deeply ambiguous with several loopholes and the possibility of
different interpretations, particularly with regard to emission cuts
by developing countries, and fund and technology transfers," he said.
The government will be hard-pressed to defend signing on to the
Copenhagen agreement, specially when there is no commitment from the
developed countries on technology transfers. The battlelines were
already drawn on Monday, with the Left parties leading the charge.
"Whether it is George Bush or Barack Obama, the narrow self-interests
of America must prevail over the interests of the world community. The
apprehensions of all poor nations that ultimately a deal will be
imposed by the US has proved correct. It is a sorry spectacle of
succumbing to US pressure," the CPI central secretariat said in a
statement.
For Obama, it had a domestic political benefit. Since he stuck to the
letter of the Waxman-Markey Bill in negotiating for a deal in
Copenhagen, Obama had the added advantage of leveraging the climate
deal to move his healthcare legislation forward.
bademiyansubhanallah
‘Operationalising Climate accord difficult’
Aarti Dhar
PTI Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh at the Parliament House in New
Delhi on Monday. Photo: PTI
Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh had told
Parliament that unsupported actions would not be open for
international monitoring, reporting and verification but the progress
would be tabled in Parliament
India has “substantially” preserved its development space under the
Copenhagen Accord at the just-concluded United Nations climate summit,
but operationalising the agreement would be “extremely difficult and
contentious,” India’s negotiator for climate change Prodipto Ghosh
said here on Monday.
The clause on international consultation and analysis of unsupported
mitigation actions by the countries — for which the guidelines are yet
to be finalised — would be the most difficult task, Mr. Ghosh, a
former Union Environment and Forests Secretary said.
Mr. Ghosh told The Hindu that the accord was a process that would
continue through the next year and culminate in Mexico City at the
16th session of the Conference of the Parties of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change. “We have substantially managed
to preserve our development space. But before the accord is
operationalised, there will be some hard negotiations on several
aspects agreed upon by the countries.”
The most difficult and contentious task will be the finalisation of
guidelines for the international consultation and analysis of the
mitigation actions, which will now be drafted while “respecting
national sovereignty,” Mr. Ghosh pointed out.
Since developing countries, including India, had refused to accept
international monitoring, reporting and verification of unsupported
mitigation actions -- though it was willing to be “flexible” -- the
accord states that actions by developing countries that were not
supported through international finance and technology would also be
open to international “consultation and analysis.”
Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh had told
Parliament that unsupported actions would not be open for
international monitoring, reporting and verification but the progress
would be tabled in Parliament and information on such projects
provided through a national communication mechanism.
Another negotiator, Rajni Ranjan Rashmi, said India’s concerns on non-
binding emission cuts were met at Copenhagen though the climate deal
did open a window for a new legal treaty that may kill the Kyoto
Protocol based on the principle of equity.
Speaking to a news agency here, Mr. Rashmi, Joint Director in the
Ministry of Environment and Forests, rejected allegations that India
succumbed to the U.S. pressure at the meet. “Equity has been ensured
by limiting temperature level to 2 degree Celsius, which has been
agreed upon by all the nations, both developing and the developed,” he
said.
The official, while admitting that it was not a win-win situation for
India, said there were positives and negatives in the deal. “No
binding commitments have been imposed upon the developing nations.”
On the downside, the treaty had opened windows for a new legal treaty
that may result in the burial of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, Mr. Rashmi
said of the limited agreement reached. Asked whether the U.S. could
challenge emerging economies such as India and China on climate steps,
he said the deal was not a legal document and Washington, or for that
matter the developed nations, cannot scrutinise domestic mitigation
and adaptation steps.
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article68418.ece?homepage=true
bademiyansubhanallah
New Delhi, Dec 22
The government was in a "Sharm-el-Sheikh syndrome" as far as the
climate change accord in Copenhagen was concerned, Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP) MP Arun Jaitley said Tuesday while labelling the document
a "betrayal of poor nations".
The accord says one thing and the government's understanding is
another, Jaitley said in the Rajya Sabha, following a statement by
Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh on the Copenhagen climate summit,
while referring to the controversial Sharm-el-Sheikh joint statement
signed by the prime ministers of India and Pakistan in Egypt earlier
this year.
The government has been "outwitted" in the drafting of the document,
Jaitley said while labelling it a "US-BASIC" accord, rather than an
accord among all 192 nations attending the summit. The BASIC countries
are Brazil, South Africa, India and China.
"It (the accord) appears to be a complete betrayal of the poor
nations," he added.
He also asked the government to clarify "what will be the consequences
under the guidelines (of the accord)".
Last updated on Dec 22nd, 2009 at 14:07 pm IST--IANS
http://www.prokerala.com/news/articles/a102114.html
bademiyansubhanallah
PTI Tuesday, December 22, 2009 13:18 IST
Last updated: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 13:40 IST
New Delhi: India, China, South Africa and Brazil were able to thwart
attempts by some developed countries to see an end to Kyoto Protocol,
which mandates rich nations to take deep emission cuts in a legally-
binding manner, said environment minister Jairam Ramesh.
Copenhagen Conference decided to continue negotiations under the
mandate of Kyoto Protocol and Bali Action Plan to be completed at the
end of 2010, he said.
Here is a provision for "international consultations and analysis" for
implementation of the actions reported through National Communications
but it has been ensured in the accord that India's sovereignty is
"respected", said Ramesh.
Copenhagen Accord not a legally binding instrument because of India,
China, South Africa and Brazil, said Ramesh.Report of mitigation
actions, supported or unsupported, will be made to the Secretariat of
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) through the
National Communications which will be made every two years, he added.
The Copenhagen Accord is to the satisfaction of all concerned, says
Ramesh.The Copenhagen Accord obliges the developed countries to
indicate their mid-term reduction target for 2020 by January 31, 2010
to the UNFCCC Secretariat, says Ramesh.
chhotemianinshallah
Agencies
Posted: Tuesday , Dec 22, 2009 at 1347 hrs
New Delhi:
'I don't think we should read much between the lines.'
Dismissing the US claims that India's domestic climate actions can be
challenged, top environmentalist R K Pachauri made it clear on Tuesday
that there was no power granted to America in the Copenhagen accord
for such interference.
The Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
was reacting to White House senior advisor David Axelrod's remark that
the climate accord allows US to not only unilaterally review India's
progress but also challenge the country if it failed to meet its
domestic climate targets.
Pachauri rejected the observation as an attempt by the Obama
administration to "win domestic favour" and categorically stated that
"there is no provision in the accord for such interference."
"What they (Obama aides) are trying is essentially to convince the
Senators that they would be able to pressure China and India on
climate actions. I think they want to project that only because they
want to get passage of the bill (Cap and Trade Bill related to carbon
emission) that has been introduced in the Senate. Apart from that, I
don't think we should read much between the lines," he said.
Pachauri also maintained that there was no pressure on India
"otherwise we would have been accepting monitoring, reporting and
verification which is what the US wanted to start with (at the
Copenhagen Summit).”
"We (India) clearly resisted with that and I think that language in
limited, non binding agreement is very clear. It talks about
consultation and analysis. And how can they (US) challenge us on that
or for that matter China or any other country which has supported the
accord," Pachauri said.
In fact, the consultation and analysis applies to all the countries
including the US, he said. Axelrod had said, "Now China and India have
set goals combating climate change. We are going to be able to review
what they are doing. We are going to be able to challenge them if they
do not meet those goals."
The US official's remark had invited sharp criticism from the
Opposition which attacked the government for compromising with India's
concerns on emission cuts at the Danish capital.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-cant-interfere-in-indias-domestic-climate-actions/557787/0
bademiyansubhanallah
23 Dec 2009, 0453 hrs IST, ET Bureau
Save Print EMail Share Comment Text:
NEW DELHI: In his anxiety to defend India’s changed position on
monitoring of domestic efforts, environment minister Jairam Ramesh
made a diplomatic
faux pas by coming close to saying that China suffered a “trust
deficit” at the international stage.
“The issue was directed at China...they wanted to have confidence that
the Chinese numbers, Chinese systems have some credibility,” the
minister said on the circumstances that led to the change in the stand
on monitoring of emission targets.
“The fact of the matter is that when the negotiations on the
Copenhagen Accord started, the issue was not anything to do with
India. I have to be careful because I am now talking about decisions
and statements made by heads of state and of countries with whom we
have excellent relations. We want to continue with these relations,”
the minister said.
Elucidating, Mr Ramesh said that since China contributes 23% of the
global greenhouse gas emissions, the world wants to bring it into the
mainstream. Mr Ramesh assured Parliament that at no time had Indian
data been questioned. “Nobody has said that we are non-transparent”.
The US, which was the other party involved in clinching the Copenhagen
Accord, had consistently maintained that China needed to be brought
under some kind of a verification regime. This demand, reiterated
virtually everyday at the recently concluded climate change
conference, led to some bitter exchange of words between officials of
the US and China.
The decision to nuance the position on MRVs, according to Mr Ramesh,
was taken when it looked like that the entire negotiation would break
down on the issue. The US wanted to use the words “scrutiny”,
“verification” or “review”.
“We resisted that for 36 hours. India, China, Brazil and South Africa
collectively resisted,” the minister said. However, the four nation
collective was also clear that it would not allow itself to be blamed
for the breakdown of the talks.
bademiyansubhanallah
22 Dec 2009, 0317 hrs IST, Mukul Sanwal,
The Copenhagen Accord is a fair deal. At Copenhagen, unity amongst the
developing countries has shaped, for the first time, design of the
rules. Once the heat and dust settles, this achievement will be seen
as a ‘game changer’ in eliminating a remediable injustice. Clearly,
the United States was very desperate to secure a deal.
By moving the multilateral discourse on climate change away from
emissions to equitable access to atmospheric space, Manmohan Singh’s
persistence is as important as Indira Gandhi’s initiative, at the
Stockholm Conference on the Environment in 1972, in pointing to
poverty as the greatest polluter, with the potential to shape future
negotiations.
Of course, perceptions will differ. Many see climate change in terms
of environmental damage, and the most popular image is one of polar
bears floating on ice floes. Hence, any agreement, despite the
consensus that world temperatures must not rise above two degrees,
that does not focus on global emissions reductions is considered
flawed. For others, the human impacts are more important, whether it
is recurrent drought in Darfur or one billion citizens lacking access
to modern energy and, for them actions must be taken in the context of
sustainable development.
According to the accord, reducing global emissions by 50% in 2050
below 1990 levels will take into account “the right to equitable
access to atmospheric space”. A sustainable approach requires the
atmospheric resource to be allocated fairly. As Nicholas Stern has
pointed out “if the allocation of rights to emit in any given year
took greater account both of history and of equity in stocks rather
than flows, then rich countries would have rights to emit which were
lower than two tonnes per capita (probably even negative). The
negotiations of such rights involve substantial financial allocations:
at $40 per tonne of CO2 equivalent a total world allocation of rights
of, say, 30 Gt (roughly the required flows in 2030) would be worth
$1.2 trillion per annum”.
There is no reason why these rights should be considered differently
from property rights, even if it entails large-scale transfers from
developed to developing countries. The emerging market mechanisms, on
the other hand, provide for developed countries allocating emissions
allowances to themselves. They also earn emission credits from
emission reductions of developing countries, moving towards a
commoditisation of carbon, based on an inequitable occupation of
atmospheric space and allocation based on annual flows, thereby
disregarding historical emissions.
A closer look at the facts reveals the significance of a new framework
that is not based on national emissions. According to analysis done by
Ecofys, a think-tank in Germany, to limit warming to two degrees
reductions of around 13 Gt of Co2 equivalents would be needed. Current
developed country emission reduction proposals as a whole are
estimated to be around 11%-19% per cent below 1990 levels, amounting
to only about 2-2.5 Gt. Moreover, the total amount of surplus
emissions credits is large enough to allow these countries to follow a
business-as-usual pathway until after 2020, while still complying with
the currently announced emissions targets. An agreement that cemented
such a deal would have led to developing countries meeting a large
part of the shortfall, after having agreed to limit warming!
Shifting the focus of the negotiations to defining the criteria for
burden-sharing establishes a new agenda that will lead to greater
fairness, and transparency. The accord recognises that long-term
cooperative action to deal with climate change will be on the basis of
equity and in the context of sustainable development. The developed
countries had, in the earlier negotiations, wanted the focus to be
solely on emissions reduction.
The accord brings other benefits as well. The principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities has never
been defined, and the focus has so far been on transfer of financial
resources, which has been provided as development assistance rather
than as an entitlement. The amount of less than $4billion. that has
been made available to the financial mechanism of the Convention is
insignificant. A high-level panel will now study potential sources of
revenue to provide $100 billion. a year by 2020.
Developing countries have gained what they had been fighting to
achieve over the last 15 years. For the first time transfers of
financial resources are treated as substantive commitments and subject
to verification. The majority of new funding will go for adaptation in
the least developed countries, and will be provided over the long
term. A new fund has been established under the Convention as well as
a new mechanism for technology transfer.
Developed countries had wanted to review national development
strategies of developing countries. This was strongly resisted, and is
now limited to international consultation and analysis of the national
communications detailing with identified mitigation and adaptation
measures — a technical review. As all actions are referenced to the
principles and provisions of the Convention, and with no agreement to
kill the Kyoto Protocol, the differentiation between developed and
developing countries, which was sought to be erased, will remain as
the essential safeguard for future economic growth.
An assessment of the implementation of the accord has to be completed
by 2015. This is also a euphemism for developing countries taking on
similar commitments as developed countries. Here again, the timing
secures the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, which
begins after 2012, and further cements the differentiation. With the
equitable sharing of atmospheric space on the agenda, this provision
may well turn out to be a pyrrhic victory for the developed
countries.
We now have the opportunity to set the agenda to determine the
criteria for burden sharing, or sharing of the atmospheric space,
which has been, and remains, the key issue of the negotiations.
Preparations for these negotiations, to develop guidelines and flesh
out details, are best done through wide participation of the states,
business and other stakeholders.
chhotemianinshallah
Darryl D’Monte
December 23, 2009
First Published: 20:56 IST(23/12/2009)
Last Updated: 01:00 IST(24/12/2009)
Reading the lines that Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh delivered in
the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday and between them, the message is evident.
“We have been successful in defending India’s national interests,” he
said. “I didn’t go to Copenhagen with the mandate of saving the world
or humanity. My mandate was to defend India’s right to develop at a
faster rate. For Western countries, it is an environmental issue but
for us, it is a development issue.”
Ramesh is articulating what a section of India’s elite fervently
believes: that it is entirely in our interests to align ourselves with
the United States and other major emitters of greenhouse gases. Hence
the unholy alliance of four, which China cobbled together, known as
BASIC — Brazil, South Africa, India and China. These are what the US
and European Union were targeting in the build-up to Copenhagen as
“major emerging countries or economies”, a term which doesn’t figure
anywhere in UN negotiations that have been painstakingly proceeding
since Bali two years ago.
These four countries are certainly going to be powers to reckon with
in the future, in part due to their large populations and natural
resources. However, does this mean that they are no longer developing
countries? Even China has a per capita income of only $3,000 and as
many as 150 million Chinese live below the poverty line. The
contradictions between the elites (till recently, exclusively white)
of South Africa and Brazil and their majorities are too well-known to
bear repetition; by some reckoning, Brazil has the worst class
differentials of any society.
Where does that leave India? While there are ongoing debates about how
many live below the poverty line — ranging from 50 per cent to 27 per
cent — some common sense can help cut through the wrangling. Mumbai is
surely one of the richest cities in India: if 55 per cent of its 16
million population lives in slums, they are obviously below the
poverty line in not being able to afford decent housing, one of three
essentials (roti, kapda aur makaan). By the same token, isn’t the rest
of India far worse off than Mumbai’s citizens? The Arjun Sengupta
Committee reported in 2007 that 836 million Indians spend no more than
Rs 20 a day. The ‘poverty line’ measured in calories should be
redefined as the starvation line.
Ramesh and others of his ilk ought to know that it is entirely in
India’s interests to align ourselves with G77 — the group of 130
developing countries, with or without China. That is our common
future, not the interests of the 250 million Indians whom New York
Times columnist Tom Freidman dubs ‘Americons’, consumers on a US scale
within this country, which would include all of us. The right to grow
doesn’t only restrict itself to the GDP increase, in which India is
admittedly a star performer, but the distribution of that growth. On
that score, as the country with some of the world’s most abysmal human
development indices — it figures 134th out of 182 countries in this
year’s United Nations list, down from 126 in 2008 — it certainly
deserves to be reckoned as a very poor country. Indeed, in terms of
the absolute numbers of poor, it has the most in the world.
Ramesh’s second thesis only confirms the belief that some sections are
seeking to redefine India’s status. He stated: “We don’t want
international aid. Let us stop this technology transfer mantra. In the
next five to ten years, we will be transferring technology to other
countries.” In recent years, India has sought to project itself as an
aid-giving rather than receiving country, at least as far as its
immediate neighbours are concerned.
To argue the same in relation to the Copenhagen outcome is totally to
deviate from India’s repeatedly-stated position. As
the Kyoto protocol underlines, all countries have a “common but
differentiated responsibility” to tackle climate change. Furthermore,
as our negotiators have been repeating ad nauseam, even in Copenhagen,
India won’t agree to any compulsory commitments without industrial
countries first providing funds and technology for this and other
developing nations, which are the victims of global warming.
Ramesh’s much-vaunted ‘flexibility’ is one thing, elasticity is
another matter altogether. Do we really believe that India has the
technological prowess to become an exporter of renewable energy in the
near future? We may have the fifth largest installed wind energy
capacity, but the technology is imported, as is that for solar power.
China may have three of the top ten solar companies, but they have
invested billions in such technologies. Meanwhile, will it be
impertinent to remind the minister that 600 million Indians have to
make do without commercial energy altogether and half of these have no
access to electricity? What has prevented the government from
providing these most essential forms of energy — a clean stove to cook
with, a light to read with, all these 60 years?
Darryl D’Monte is Chairperson, Forum of Environmental Journalists of
India (FEJI)
The views expressed by the author are personal
L.AroraDec 24
the 300 million odd middle class and above exists because the rest 800
million is either serving the rest or dying of hunger. You would find
sometimes 2-3 servants for 1 (rich)person!!!!!! The reality of India
is far more horrible than we would like to think. We are the biggest
racists in the world , we only mingle with people of our status and
HIGHER, anything less will not do and every kind of misuse like
violence is allowed.
pravesh kumarDec 23
i think u are absolutely right. there is avast difference in our
country's rich and poor, 70 to 80% of the gdp is contributed by 1 or
2% of the population in india. by this angle india is seen nowhere in
the race to development hood...
http://www.hindustantimes.com/editorial-views-on/editorials/Basic-instincts/Article1-489846.aspx
chhotemianinshallah
Sitaram Yechury
December 15, 2009
First Published: 21:22 IST(15/12/2009)
Last Updated: 21:28 IST(15/12/2009)
The global negotiations on Climate Change at Copenhagen enters its
final stage with the three-day Heads of States Summit starting today.
Reports so far indicate the unfolding of the Shakespearean dilemma of
Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark: “To be or not to be...”
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
that began in 1990 has by now established that the concentration of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is rapidly approaching levels
beyond which irreversible and potentially catastrophic changes in
global climate could occur. While these changes will affect all of
humanity, the worst affected will be the poor, especially in the
developing world. India is likely to suffer severe damages with the
melting of Himalayan glaciers, drastic changes in rainfall patterns
leading to floods, droughts, rising sea levels and displacement of
millions of people.
Undoubtedly, there is an urgent need to act in limiting such emissions
to ensure that global temperatures do not rise beyond 2°C. There is,
however, another view that global warming may be happening due to
factors much beyond human activities. Despite all scientific advances,
the one area where little is known is what is happening under our feet
on our planet. Drilling for 19 years to probe the depths of Earth,
whose radius is over 6,000 km, the Soviets reached a depth of nearly
13 km before the Soviet Union collapsed. No one has ventured beyond
this. Even this minuscule penetration revealed many surprises negating
what scientists presumed on the basis of seismic waves and other
indirect methods. For instance, at a depth of 10 km, the temperature
was found to be 180°C, nearly twice the forecast level. These
happenings may well be impacting on temperatures at the surface.
This nevertheless should not detract the efforts humanity must make to
ensure that life breathes cleaner air and tangible changes that affect
both livelihood and quality of life of billions are reversed. The last
two decades of negotiations were aimed at achieving this. This was
based on the inviolable principle of ‘common but differentiated
responsibility’. This underlined the fact that the developed
countries, having contributed the most to green house emissions, must
undertake greater responsibility now in reducing them. The 1997 Kyoto
Protocol set binding targets for the developed countries while
exempting developing countries but calling upon the latter to take
appropriate measures commensurate with their national capabilities.
Developed countries, instead of reducing emissions by 5 per cent
compared to 1990, increased their cumulative emissions by 10 per cent.
The US, which refused to ratify the protocol, increased its emissions
by 17 per cent. It is now being called to commit to mandatory emission
cuts of 40 per cent by 2020 and 90 per cent by 2050.
It’s precisely this that they are resisting by calling upon all
countries to announce voluntary internationally monitored
cuts. They are jettisoning the so-far accepted concept of
‘differentiated responsibility’ and imposing an unjust ‘common’ order.
The US has offered to cut 17 per cent from 2005 levels, which reduces
to just 3 percent from the 1990 levels — less than what was proposed
at Kyoto. It’s virtually mocking at the world.
It is this that needs to be resisted at Copenhagen. The developed
countries will have to accept internationally monitored mandatory
cuts. The developing countries will announce voluntary reductions
whose realisation is contingent upon the developed world fulfilling
its commitments on transfer of finances and technology (without
intellectual property rights royalty payments) as contained in Article
4 Paragraph 7 of the UNFCCC: “commitments under the convention will
depend on the effective implementation by developed country parties of
their commitments under the Convention relating to financial resources
and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that
economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first
and overriding priorities of the developing country parties.”
The two red lines drawn by the Indian Parliament — a) no binding
emission cuts will be acceptable, and b) there shall be no deadline
for peaking of emissions by the developing countries — will have to be
adhered to. This remains non-negotiable.
The developed countries cannot negate their ‘historical
responsibility’ and continue with their pillage of global climate at
the expense of the vast majority of humanity. They need to be forced
to continue to accept per capita emissions as the basis of energy
equality as every human on Earth should have equal access to carbon
space. Such inequality — per capita emissions in the US are 20 times
greater than those in India — can’t persist.
Thus, Hamlet’s dilemma continues:
“To be or not to be: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortunes,
Or to take arms against the sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?”
Unlike in the play, humanity can ill-afford the tragic end in the hope
of an eternal reunion in an ethereal world. Mortals need a just,
equitable deal. In its absence, no deal is better than a bad deal.
Rajya Sabha MP and CPI(M) Politburo member Sitaram Yechury is
attending the Copenhagen Summit as part of a five-member Indian
parliamentary delegation
The views expressed by the author are personal
Deepak GhanvatkarDec 19
Sir,
We should not sail with the American Boat against the Climate and
environment. It only means that man is borrowing his life and
prosperity by mortgaging the next generation!
-Deepak Ghanvatkar
karanDec 19
How can the Indian government deliver binding emission cuts when they
cant even save the Yamuna or clean the Ganges(crores gobbled up by
politicians and beaurocrats).All our cities are huge garbage dumps and
the pollution levels are intolerable high.We have been clearing our
forests,dumping in our rivers and breaking records in producing
children.Lets cut the farce and stop the devastation which we have
unleashed on our environment.If we can reverse deforestation and go
easy on our goal of being the most populated country in the world - we
have done our job.
AnonymousDec 16
u r a fag Nikit
Nikit AbhyankarDec 16
When are we going to accept the fact that rich in India have no less
carbon footprint than those in the USA. How long are we going to hide
them behind the poor? While I agree that India should not take any
binding international commitments, there has to be some intra-national
mandate on the rich.
Nikit AbhyankarDec 16
When are we going to accept the fact that rich in India have no less
carbon footprint than those in the USA. How long are we going to hide
them behind the poor? While I agree that India should not take any
binding international commitments, there has to be some intra-national
mandate on the rich.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/sitaramyechury/Something-rotten/Article1-486958.aspx
chhotemianinshallah
Agencies
Posted: Sunday , Dec 27, 2009 at 1047 hrs
New Delhi:
The battle (between developed and developing nations on emission cuts)
is not settled yet: Saran
India has said that the Copenhagen Accord endorses the view that the
rich nations have the responsibility to agree to emission reduction
cuts but conceded that it also opens a window for the burial of the
Kyoto Protocol in the future.
However, it said that future of the Kyoto Protocol, which commits
industrialised nations to undertake legally binding emission cuts,
depends on the way the post-Copenhagen negotiations are carried out.
"That it opens a window and that possibility is there, of course. But
that depends on how we take the negotiations forward," Prime
Minister's Special Envoy on Climate Change Shyam Saran said in an
interview.
He was replying to a question on whether the Copenhagen Accord opened
a window for a new treaty that would allow the burial of the Kyoto
Protocol.
"What I am trying to point out is that in a sense we have agreed that
we will live to fight another day," he said adding that the Copenhagen
Accord was "beyond a step forward" in the efforts to tackle climate
change.
Saran said that a major achievement of the Copenhagen talks was that
the parties had agreed that the negotiations would continue on the
twin tracks of the Bali Action Plan and the Kyoto Protocol.
"We have also at the same time agreed to carry on the negotiations on
the basis of Bali Action Plan. It (the negotiations) is not settled
yet. The important achievement of developing countries is that they
did not allow this saga to end (at Copenhagen)," Saran said.
The Accord was "taken note of" by the 15th Conference of Parties at
their extended meeting in the Danish capital on December 19.
"I would say it (Accord) is beyond a step forward because here you
have an Accord which touched upon all the major outstanding
issues...and in a sense represented a very broad consensus of the
global community," Saran said.
The Kyoto Protocol cannot be forgotten or buried "for the simple
reason that it is a valid legal instrument," he said of the 1997 pact
that mandates the rich nations to take up legally binding emissions
while exempting the developed nations from doing so.
Saran said at the moment all the nations have agreed that Kyoto
Protocol must remain and "we should continue the talks on that
track".
"The battle (between developed and developing nations on emission
cuts) is not settled yet. The Accord has not exempted the developed
countries from legally binding emission cuts and even from historical
responsibility.
"What Copenhagen has done is to endorse the view that the developed
nations have a responsibility to engage in absolute emission reduction
while the major developing countries have the responsibility of
mitigating the rise in their emission," he added.
In the absence of consensus at the two-week meet which concluded on
December 19 in the Danish capital, world leaders will have to work to
achieve a global legally binding climate change treaty at the next
annual UN ministerial talks in Mexico in December 2010.
Saran, who was India's lead negotiator at the summit, defended the
government's stand of agreeing to the provision of "international
consultation and analysis" in the Accord and asserted that "it will in
no way affect India's sovereignty."
"What we have agreed to is consultation and analysis according to
agreed guidelines which must not violate any nation's sovereignty," he
said noting that the Western nations were pushing for more harsh
actions by trying to incorporate words like review and verification in
the document.
Saran made it clear that "we will consult in terms of whatever we have
put forward as information on our action (on climate change) and if
there is some doubt on data then we are ready to give them (to the
developed world).
In fact, he said at the hectic negotiations at the climate meet, "what
we were worried about was the kind of review which would look at the
adequacy of our mitigation efforts.
"But we should not have any difficulty in terms of transparency of our
actions so whatever we are giving for instance to Parliament as
information or whatever targets we have undertaken."
Saran made it clear that the consultation and analysis on mitigation
actions by developing countries would be done under a set of agreed
guidelines. "We have to negotiate on what would be guidelines for such
consultations and analysis.
"What we were not willing to accept was any kind of verification or
review in the sense that somebody will come to us and say look I am
going to scrutinise your strategy for development or your climate
change action plan and tell you whether it is adequate or not," he
added.
Saran rejected suggestions that the developed countries have got away
without agreeing to any quantified legally-binding emission reduction
targets.
"They have not got away with it because they have agreed for
continuing the negotiations," Saran said.
He underlined the close cooperation among Brazil, South Africa, India
and China -- the BASIC group -- at Copenhagen. Saran noted that during
the last two years of negotiations, the four countries had worked
together, coordinated their positions and in a sense even shaped the
position taken by the G-77 plus China bloc.
A highlight of Copenhagen talks was that the cooperation among BASIC
countries was elevated to the summit level, Saran said adding that the
top leaders of the four nations met in the morning of December 18 to
strategise their position and were together again in the evening to
review the day's events.
"Yes it could be," Saran said when asked if the BASIC grouping could
be a major force in international negotiations.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/at-hagen-we-agreed-to-live-to-fight-another-day-saran/559717/0
chhotemianinshallah
24 Dec 2009, 0458 hrs IST, T K Arun, ET Bureau
India has quite a few low-hanging fruits, when it comes to making its
contribution to arresting climate change. The voluntary commitment
that India has made, that emission intensity — emissions per unit of
output — would be brought down 25% over the 2005 base year level is
only a fraction of what is achievable, at little cost.
Take the easiest thing to be done. This is in lighting, which accounts
for about 15% of all electricity consumption. The scope for raising
energy efficiency in lighting is huge. The conventional incandescent
lamp, which amazingly continues to rule the roost in government
buildings and five-star hotels (save that of ITC), yields 15 lumens of
light per watt. The compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) is five times more
efficient, and produces 65 lumens per watt. Modern light emitting
diodes (LEDs) are capable of producing as much as 125-150 lumens of
light per watt (most traffic lights these days consist of circular
arrays of these pin-points of light).
If we replace all conventional lamps with LEDs, total electricity
consumption can come down by at least 10 percentage points. But that
would cost a pile. Just as CFLs are more expensive than conventional
lamps, LEDs are more expensive than CFLs. But there’s a way out:
economies of scale.
Can the government place a massive order to replace all existing lamps
in all government buildings across the country with LEDs? Can it call
upon all information technology companies, automobile manufacturers,
all public enterprises, etc to join in and enhance the size of the
order? Such a massive order would force the world’s LED manufacturers
to set up huge capacities in India, and LED prices would come crashing
down to a fraction of the current cost. The saving in lighting costs
would then persuade households to voluntarily switch to LEDs. All
newly electrified rural homes could be supplied with LEDs, which have
a long life, as an additional benefit.
Another low-hanging fruit is coal beneficiation. Indian coal is low in
sulphur but high in ash. About 40%-45% of what is sold as coal is non-
combustible material which turns into fly-ash. Removing/reducing the
ash-content is called beneficiation. Coal mining being a government
monopoly, there is extraneous matter other than ash that spoils the
coal — corruption and inefficiency.
India’s unbeneficiated, high-ash coal wastes energy in multiple ways.
The Railways earn about 40% of its revenue hauling coal. Passenger
loads and high-value parcels weigh less than bulk cargo like coal. So
the energy spent on earning one rupee of coal-hauling revenue would be
higher than the energy spent on one rupee of other revenue. It would
be safe to assume that at least 50% of the Railways’ fuel bill would
come from transporting coal. But 40% of that so-called coal is rock,
shale, etc that will finally turn into fly-ash. In other words, 20% of
the Railways’ fuel cost is spent on transporting worthless proto- fly
ash over long distances. If the coal were beneficiated to bring down
the ash content by half before being loaded on to railway rakes, the
Railways could save 10% of their fuel.
The fly-ash, once generated at the power plant, has to be then
transported someplace else, consuming yet more energy. Ash is an
insulator and,
inside the boiler, reduces the heat being transferred from the burnt
coal to the boiler tubes, reducing the overall thermal efficiency of
the system.
Fly-ash hastens climate change in yet another fashion. Once its fine
particles form a haze in the air around the power-plant, it interferes
with the radiation of heat (we are discounting the energy consumed in
patients toing and froing to doctors to treat pulmonary infections
created by the fly-ash in the air).
What is the policy action? To force Coal India, the state-owned
monopoly, to beneficiate coal before it sells. Here again, there’s a
choice between conventional wet beneficiation and newer technologies
of dry beneficiation. In wet beneficiation, large quantities of water
is spoilt and pollutes the ground, and also adds to the moisture
content of the coal. When wet coal is burnt, it produces water vapour,
a greenhouse gas, and also wastes some heat on boiling off the water
in the coal. So, for all non-coking coal, dry beneficiation is clearly
what the climate doctor has ordered.
There are similar other low-hanging fruits in multiple sectors. The
Opposition is crying foul on India’s climate change commitments. In
the fable, the fox at least jumped many times before it called the
grapes sour.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/5372006.cms
chhotemianinshallah
Aligning with China only undermines New Delhi's negotiating position
and costs its people dearly..
By BRAHMA CHELLANEY
China has been publicly excoriated by U.S. officials and others for
opposing a binding climate-change deal at this month's United Nations
summit in Copenhagen. But the real loser was India.
By aligning itself with China's negotiating position, India bracketed
itself with the world's largest polluting nation. This tack has been
months in the works; back in October, New Delhi signed a five-year
memo of understanding with Beijing and agreed, among other things, to
present a united front in Copenhagen. Environment Minister Jairam
Ramesh went so far as to declare there "is no difference" between the
two countries' negotiating positions.
Yet there is a huge difference in actual emissions. China is the
world's largest polluter, responsible for 24% of global carbon
emissions. Most of these emissions are due to China's economic
development path, which has relied heavily on carbon-intensive,
manufacturing industries. China's per-capita carbon emissions are four
times higher than India's, which boasts the lowest per-capita
emissions among all-important developing countries, at 26% of the
world's average.
China also doesn't share India's basic approach to curbing global
warming. New Delhi wants per-capita emission levels and historic
contributions to the build-up of greenhouse gases to form the
objective criteria for any global carbon mitigation plan. China, as
the world's factory, wants a different formula that discounts carbon
intensity linked to export industries.
Nor does India have much in common with other major developing
nations, either in its carbon profile or industrial-development
levels. For example, in 2007 (the latest figures available) India's
per-capita emissions totalled 1.2 tons; South Africa, 9.4; China, 4.8;
and Brazil, 2.1, according to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration.
These facts argue for India to align itself with the least developed
nations, which have lower emissions profiles. Yet the government of
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh entered the Copenhagen negotiations
joined at the hip with China, first by agreeing to put up a united
front and then by following in Beijing's footsteps to unveil a
voluntary plan to slash its carbon intensity by 2020.
The move forced the U.S. to strike a watered-down deal with the
developing-world bloc of Brazil, India, South Africa and China—rather
than deal directly with the world's largest polluter, China. The deal
also committed India to "implement mitigation actions" open to
"international consultations and analysis." Rather than focus on
providing basic services—like electricity and safe drinking water—to
the hundreds of millions of poor Indians who desperately need them,
Mr. Singh also pledged to slash India's emissions intensity by 20%
"regardless of the outcome" in Copenhagen.
Past experience should have taught India that whenever it has joined
hands with China on environmental issues, it has been let down by
Beijing's proclivity to jettison principles in the ruthless pursuit of
self-interest. Take the 1989 Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer: China teamed up with India in the
negotiations, only to reverse its stance and agree to abide by the
protocol if it were compensated for the compliance costs. India was
forced to follow suit.
In Copenhagen, India would have done better to delink itself from
China and the other two leading developing nations and to encourage
the world's largest polluters—the U.S. and China—to do a deal.
India not only aligned itself with the wrong group, but also it
presented itself inadvertently as a major global polluter by making
common cause with China, whose developmental path threatens to unleash
a carbon tsunami on the world. After all, had the situation in
Copenhagen been reversed—with India's per-capita emissions four times
higher than China's, and with India in the line of international fire—
would Beijing have helped provide New Delhi diplomatic cover?
Mr. Chellaney, professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy
Research in New Delhi, is the author of "On the Frontline of Climate
Change: International Security Implications" (Konrad Adenauer
Foundation, 2007).
1 hour ago..Barrie Harrop wrote:
.
COP15-yes good outcome for the entire world, 2degrees linking of
developed and developing countries in agreement to cut emissions and
developing an international monitor of all nations are good outcomes.
33 minutes ago..STEVE SOWERS wrote:
.India linked itself to China because they, like the ruthless number
crunching Chinese, are sceptical of the whole theory of man made
global warming and even more so that all this talk of net reductions
in CO2 emissions will amount to anything more than a simple tax on
existing. The Chinese govt doesn't need an excuse to take more money
from it's citizens; it can do what ever it wants short of risking too
many of it's people being dissatisfied with the progress in the
standard of living that could be threatened by some inconvenient,
artificial, and varifiable carbon scheme.
The amount of time, money and energy that has been wasted worrying
about global temperatures that naturally cause sea levels to rise and
fall by 100s of feet and cover continents in ice in relatively short
periods of time would be funny were it not for the trillions of
dollars in property the corporations and govts hope to extract from
the individual. I can almost hear Barrie HEE-HEEing to himself
gleefully as he rubs his unproductive hands together.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703510304574627093421492108.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Sid Harth
PTI Thursday, December 31, 2009 13:58 IST
Varanasi: The Copenhagen accord on climate change was a partial
success for India but it has certain "inbuilt hazards" of which the
developing countries have to be wary, environment minister Jairam
Ramesh said here.
"The accord has certain inbuilt hazards and the developing world,
especially India, has to be wary on those accounts. The foremost risk
is that the developed world could demand an end to the Kyoto Protocol
(based on the principle of equity)," Ramesh, who was here yesterday to
review the progress of the Ganga river cleanliness programme, told
reporters. He, however, rejected the Opposition's claim that the
Copenhagen summit was a failure.
"It is a partial victory for BASIC Group comprising Brazil, China,
India and South Africa when it wrested three important benefits from
US President Barack Obama at Copenhagen," he said referring to the two-
week negotiations at the Danish capital.
The US gave in to our proposals on global goals and the legally non-
binding nature of the accord, he said referring to India's position of
not accepting any binding cuts on emissions.
On monitoring and verification and, in particular, on the US proposal
of analysis/ assessment, Ramesh said, "We agreed for consultations and
analysis which would respect national sovereignty". He said India
bargained at the summit from the point of strength and "we did not
enter into any binding agreement."
http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_copenhagen-accord-has-inbuilt-hazaards-jairam-ramesh_1329394
chhotemianinshallah
(AFP) – 1 hour ago
NEW DELHI — Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who successfully
fought against binding caps on emissions at the Copenhagen climate
talks, admitted Sunday that all parties involved were unhappy with the
results.
Singh told a science conference in the city of Thiruvananthapuram that
world leaders "were able to make only limited progress at the
Copenhagen summit and no one was satisfied with the outcome.
"There is no escaping the truth that the nations of the world have to
move to a low greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficient
development path," he said.
At last month's talks, India and other emerging nations such as China
thwarted plans for legally binding emissions caps, arguing the
importance of maintaining rapid economic growth.
India insists that developed countries, blamed for most global warming
thus far, should bear the burden of mitigating its future effects.
India's per capita emissions are among the lowest globally as much of
the country is without power, but in volume terms it is still among
the top five carbon emitters.
At Copenhagen, a total of 30 billion dollars was pledged from
2010-2012 to help poor countries in the firing line of climate change.
Rich nations also sketched out a target of providing 100 billion
dollars annually by 2020.
The deal set the aim of limiting warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6
degrees Fahrenheit), but set no binding targets to reduce emissions of
gases that scientists say are heating the world's atmosphere to
dangerous levels.
Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has welcomed the lack of
binding measures and praised the united front presented by major
emerging countries.
A diplomatic battle erupted over the summit's final agreement, which
has been widely panned for its failure to oblige countries to
implement emissions reductions.
Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved.
India and other emerging nations thwarted plans for legally binding
emissions caps at the Copenhagen summit
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iXPH3Y1IxLmFG6PI3gAqBLBGqa1A
Sid Harth
PTI Monday, January 4, 2010 21:44 IST
New Delhi: Accusing environment minister Jairam Ramesh of
misrepresenting facts before Parliament, BJP today said with the prime
minister's "admission" that Copenhagen summit was not satisfactory,
India should take a lead in bringing Kyoto Protocol "back on track".
"The prime minister has wittingly or unwittingly admitted that the
Copenhagen summit was not satisfactory. Does this mean that
environment minister Jairam Ramesh had misrepresented facts before
Parliament that India's interests were safe?
"The prime minister should direct him to present the correct picture
before the nation," BJP spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad told
reporters here.
He said after prime minister Manmohan Singh's "own admission" that the
climate change talks were not satisfactory, India should take a lead
in "bringing the Kyoto Protocol back on tracks with the help of other
developing nations."
Inaugurating the 97th Indian Science Congress at Thiruvananthapuram
yesterday, Singh acknowledged that results of last month's climate
summit had left no one satisfied and the progress made was, "limited."
Sid Harth
STAFF WRITER 19:48 HRS IST
New Delhi, Jan 8 (PTI) A leading environmental body today today
slammed the Copenhagen accord on climate change, terming it "weak,
meaningless and fundamentally flawed" and said India should not sign
and endorse it.
"It (the accord) allows developed countries to increase emissions --
by negating the position that Annex I (developed nations) emissions
should have peaked by the year 2000.
"It does not set drastic emission reduction targets for these
countries. If this accord is accepted, the world will not be able to
meet the 2?C target but will be on a disastrous course of at least 3?C
and more," Sunita Narain, director of Centre for Science and
Environment (CSE), told reporters here.
She alleged the Accord prepared during the UN summit last month
legitimises inaction by industrialised nations and shifts the burden
of the transition on to developing countries.
http://www.ptinews.com/news/459467_CSE-dubs-Copenhagen-accord-as-weak--meaningless
chhotemianinshallah
Valleys India
Last Updated on Monday, 11 January 2010 13:59
Written by ANI
Story Highlight
" This Solar Mission has the pride of place in India''s National
Action Plan on climate change. Its success has the potential of
transforming India''s energy prospects, and contributing also to
national as well as global efforts to combat climate change."
Inaugurating the ''Jawaharlal Nehru Solar Mission'' on Monday, Prime
Minister Dr Manmohan Singh called upon creation of Solar Valleys on
the lines of Silicon Valleys, and asked the industrial groups to sight
the mission as a huge business prospect.
Dr Singh said, " This Solar Mission has the pride of place in India''s
National Action Plan on climate change. Its success has the potential
of transforming India''s energy prospects, and contributing also to
national as well as global efforts to combat climate change."
"This mission is one of the major priorities of the second term of our
government and I congratulate Dr. Abdullah and my other colleagues
particularly Shyam Saran, for the work they have done in bringing this
to fruition," he added.
Dr Singh further said, "Increased use of solar energy is a central
component of our strategy to bring about a strategic shift from our
current reliance on fossil fuels to a pattern of sustainable growth
based on renewable and clean sources of energy."
"The importance of this mission is not just limited to providing large-
scale grid connected power. It has the potential to provide
significant multipliers in our efforts for transformation of India''s
rural economy." he added.
Dr Singh said, "The rapid spread of solar lighting systems, solar
water pumps and other solar power-based rural applications can change
the face of India''s rural economy. We intend to significantly expand
such applications through this Mission."
"The target of 20,000 MW of solar generating capacity by the end of
the 13th Five Year Plan is no doubt an ambitious target. But I do
sincerely believe that the target is doable and that we should work
single-mindedly to achieve it as a priority national endeavour," he
added.
Dr Singh said, "The carefully crafted regulatory and incentive
framework that has been unveiled today has several innovative
features. This will encourage technological innovation and generate
economies of scale, thereby leading to a steady lowering of costs."
"We will need to find ways of reducing the space intensity of current
solar applications, including through the use of nano-technology. Cost-
effective and convenient storage of solar energy beyond daylight hours
will be critical to its emergence as a mainstream source of power," he
added.
Union Minister for New and Renewable Energy Farooq Abdullah presided
over the function.
The Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission is India''s initiative on
climate change, which comes under the Ministry of New and Renewable
Energy.
With the Launch of the ''Solar Mission Programme'', the Centre is
eyeing upon reducing the target from the original 20,000 MW to a
more reasonable limit. (ANI)
Sid Harth
TNN, 21 January 2010, 01:11am IST
NEW DELHI: For the first time in its history, the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — a panel of 2,500 of
the best climate scientists in the world — accepted on Wednesday that
it had made a huge goof-up in its fourth assessment report on climate
change and withdrew its assertion that the Himalayan glaciers ran the
risk of being wiped out by 2035.
It admitted that proper ‘‘procedures’’ were not followed while
reaching the conclusion which not only created a massive scare ,
particularly in India, but also placed New Delhi often on the backfoot
in climate debates leading up to the Copenhagen summit.
The Nobel-prize winning body, however, attempted to soften the blow by
couching its words. Its statement said: ‘‘It has come to our attention
that (the statement on Himalayan glaciers) refers to poorly
substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the
disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in
question, clear and well-established standards of evidence, required
by IPCC procedures were not applied properly.’’
That non-application of procedure is an euphemism for the boo-boo
becomes apparent from the kind of carelessness that went into writing
the report.
For one, the report is said to have borrowed from a 1996 Russian study
by V M Kotlyakov and bungled on the glacier melt deadline predicted by
it — the study set the deadline at 2350, while the IPCC made it 2035,
perhaps due to a small typological error, but which in effect advanced
the deadline by over 300 years!
What’s remarkable is that this deadline was hotly contested by the
Indian government. The IPCC team, led by TERI chief R K Pachauri,
brushed aside these objections and didn’t even care to double-check
its facts, even though the conclusion of its findings meant as
dramatic a development as the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers in
the next 25 years.
IPCC’s lack of rigour also becomes clear from the fact that it shunned
peer-reviewed science reports published in well-known journals, and
instead lifted references from a report by WWF, an NGO, that supports
strong action on climate change. It now transpires that WWF had picked
up this alarmist view from a pop-science magazine, the New Scientist.
In turn, the magazine had quoted an Indian scientist, Syed Hasnain,
then with Jawaharlal Nehru University, but currently working for
TERI.
Sid Harth
TNN, 21 January 2010, 01:31am IST
Excerpts from an interview with R K Pachauri, chairman of UN’s Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change on the controversies surrounding
the Nobel peace prize winning scientific panel:
The reference to Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 was wrong?
Basically yes, in this case there has been an error, but the overall
findings, the problems of the melting glaciers, we stand by it. In
fact, this was a thousand page report, and this one statement was the
result of an error.
Can you with reasonable confidence say that there are no more errors
in the IPCC report?
I think we have placed a series of procedures and processes, we are
very particular about choosing individuals (for IPCC positions) but
where you have got 4,000 people, undoubtedly there would be one or two
who are likely to falter, so oversight functions have to function. We
have very good procedures but where we may falter is when someone
fails to adhere to them.
Will there be any action against any IPCC official or staff that were
involved in clearing this incorrect information as part of the
report?
No, we won’t take any action but this is something we will keep in
mind because this will certainly be something reflecting on the
performance of individuals. And we are in the process of selecting
authors for the new report and we will keep in mind.
Are you going to do something against those who have raised questions
about your personal actions?
I am keeping the options open but I don’t want to stoop to the level
of muck that some people are unnecessarily trying to create. They want
me to lose my cool but I am not going to do that. I have been
scrupulous from the day I joined this institute. This is dirty stuff
(the accusations).
On Teri and any conflict of interests the institution and his position
have caused?
IPCC only funds my travel for the meetings and nothing else I do. I
cannot undertake the extensive travels I take as chairman. The
government of India supports me in part for staff I have dedicated to
IPCC at The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri) but it doesn’t bear
other costs which we must admit are very high.
What is Teri’s association with Syed Hasnain, the glaciologist?
Hasnain has been with Teri for two years and this has come to light
only now. I took him on because who amongst the glaciologists has done
such sustained work in India over 30-odd years. If you know of anyone
else, tell me. I don’t see any conflict of interest. There are others
who are authors of the IPCC report in Teri. They do the best they can,
I am sure that Hasnain did. If during an interview he ventured an
opinion, he is entitled to do that.
Sid Harth
Nitin Sethi, TNN, 21 January 2010, 03:38am IST
NEW DELHI: IPCC's admission of getting its facts on Himalayan glaciers
completely wrong has again brought out concerns about the use of
science, and pseudo-science, to put pressure on India to take stronger
action on climate change or to put greater responsibility for the
climate crisis on it.
The '2035 demise' date drawn by IPCC in its fourth assessment report
for Himalayan glaciers was used very often to demand that India should
take greater action to reduce its emissions in order to protect people
from catastrophes like glacial melts and floods. Similarly, a
'premature' release of information on the so-called Asian Brown Cloud
was used by several western NGOs and governments to pin the blame on
the melting of glaciers and other climate change impacts on pollution
from burning firewood and cow dung in India.
While the UN released a preliminary report suggesting that India's
poor were adding to climate change by using firewood and cow dung for
heating, it later retracted, admitting that the results were partial
and preliminary in nature and clear evidence linking the haze to
changes in Indian monsoon and other factors had not been established
with certainty. The release of the report, timed closely to crucial
climate negotiations where the industrialized countries were keen to
get India to take international commitments for reducing its
emissions, did not go unnoticed.
The discussions on the ABC — a thick layer of seasonal smog that forms
over parts of India, just as it does in several parts of the world —
continue to surface periodically even today, and unnervingly, timed
close to ongoing climate negotiations. One of the key authors of the
work on ABC was V Ramanathan of the US-based Scripps Institute of
Oceanography, who is now going to be funded by the Indian government
to carry out further studies on the issue at Teri, IPCC chairman R K
Pachauri's institute.
One of the earliest cases of scientific manipulation that caused
furore was when the US Environment Protection Agency tried to pass the
blame of climate change to poorer countries like India. It had claimed
that wet paddy fields in India were emitting very high levels of
methane, an extremely high potential climate warming gas, but with
very short life in the atmosphere. It had suggested that India had to
check its survival emissions.
It was later found, through research done independently in India, that
emissions from wet paddy fields and animal husbandry in India were
less than one-tenth of those of the US; EPA had claimed and that their
impact was highly insignificant when compared to the large volumes of
historical and existing emissions by the industrialized countries.
Sid Harth
Nitin Sethi, TNN, 19 January 2010, 05:39am IST
NEW DELHI: The furore over the validity of data used by UN's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has taken some of the
sheen off the Nobel prize-winning institution's reputation.
A day after it emerged that IPCC's dire prediction that climate change
would melt most Himalyan glaciers by 2035 was based on mere
"speculation", environment minister Jairam Ramesh slammed the
processes of the celebrated body saying "due diligence had not been
followed by the Nobel peace prize winning body".
"The health of glaciers is a cause of grave concern but the IPCC's
alarmist position that they would melt by 2035 was not based on an
iota of scientific evidence," the environment minister said.
Ramesh recalled how IPCC chief R K Pachauri had scornfully dismissed
doubts raised by a government agency about the veracity of the UN
body's sensational projection about melting of glaciers. "In fact, we
had issued a report by scientist V K Raina that the glaciers have not
retreated abnormally. At the time, we were dismissed, saying it was
based on voodoo science. But the new report has clearly vindicated our
position," he said.
This may not be the first time that climate science relating to India
has been found to be fallacious or incorrect. However, revelation that
the data on glacial melt in Himalayas was unverified has dented the
image of the IPCC -- which has set the agenda for climate change
talks. It has given a handle to climate sceptics who have long accused
the IPCC of being biased.
The report by Raina and other glaciologists had found support from
some well-known glaciologists from across the world at that time.
Pachauri, the high profile head of IPCC, acknowledged to TOI that the
controversy had caused loss of face for the institution. "Of course,
it goes without saying (that the IPCC's reputation has suffered). We
have to see that its gold-plated standard is maintained," he said.
The embarrassment comes close on the heels of the disclosure of emails
among scientists aligned with the IPCC who argued that data
undercutting their conclusions should be withheld from public.
When asked what steps the IPCC would take to correct the erroneous
information in its report, Pachauri said the group would move swiftly
to verify facts at its own level, work to figure how the `deviation
from due process occurred' and act on the situation.
Other sources, not willing to come on record, suggested that IPCC was
looking at the possibility of a `corrigendum or errata' to be
published within the week. While this is not unprecedented in IPCC
history, corrections carried out so far related to typographical
errors.
This time, however, the body will be correcting an unverified report
that not only got included in its findings that framed the cliamte
change negotitations but remained undetected for more than two years.
The IPCC is only meant to include peer-reviewed information that has
passed the litmus test of being published in reputed journals. But
this is not the first time that data on India, often used by
industrialised countries to put pressure on Delhi to take actions, has
been found to be incorrect.
"In 1990, US raised a scare that methane emissions (an intense
greenhouse gas) from wet paddy fields in India were as high as 38
million tonnes. It was later found by Indian scientists and globally
accepted that it was as low as 2-6 million tonnes," Ramesh said.
Again in 2000, just before crucial negotiations, US and other
industrialised countries flogged an unverified report of UNEP that
claimed soot from chullahs (earthen cookstoves) was adding greatly to
climate change, calling it the Asian Brown Haze.
Sid Harth
ASHIS RAY, TNN, 19 January 2010, 02:57am IST
LONDON: The British government is to carry out due diligence on New
Delhi-based The Energy Research Institute following a local
newspaper’s relentless campaign against the organization and its
director-general, Rajendra Pachauri, who is also the IPCC chairman.
A British Department for International Development statement said,
‘‘As is routine, DFID is undertaking a full Institutional Assessment
of TERI as part of our due diligence process.’’
The Sunday Telegraph’s persistence seems to have ‘‘triggered the
routine’’.
The paper attacked DFID and its secretary of state (cabinet minister)
Douglas Alexander for presenting 10 million pounds of British tax-
payers money to TERI in Delhi last September. In its most recent
piece, titled ‘‘The curious case of the expanding environmental group
with falling income’’, it once again questioned TERI and Pachauri’s
probity.
It alleged, ‘‘He (Pachauri) enjoys a lavish lifestyle; his Delhi home
is in the Golf Links area, the most expensive stretch of residential
real estate in India, and he is famous for his $1,000 suits.’’ The
piece also insinuated that while the registered charity, TERI Europe’s
business in the past six years had increased, its published turnover
had decreased.
When ‘‘The Sunday Telegraph’’ reportedly put it to one of its two
directors, Dr Ritu Kumar, a south London resident, that the body’s
income and expenditure in recent years were both much greater than the
figures it declared, she is said to have admitted anomalies in the
accounts. Teri Europe’s accountants have now been instructed to
produce a revised version.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pachauri-led-TERI-under-UK-scanner/articleshow/5474931.cms
Sid Harth
Chris Hastings & Jonathan Leake, Sunday Times, London, 18 January
2010, 12:04am IST
A warning that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers
by 2035 is likely to be retracted after the United Nations body that
issued it admitted a series of scientific blunders.
Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest
and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A
central claim was that the world's glaciers were melting so fast that
those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days, the scientists behind the warning have admitted
that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular
science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on
a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, an obscure Indian
scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Hasnain
has since admitted that the claim was ``speculation'' and not
supported by any formal research.
If confirmed, it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in
climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world
leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.
Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report,
said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: "If
Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a
wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about
Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments."
The IPCC's reliance on Hasnain's 1999 interview has been highlighted
by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview
for the New Scientist. Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999
after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine.
Pearce said: "Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report
containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer
reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no
formal status so I reported his work on that basis.
"Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain
said. In other words it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any
Himalayan glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his
comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers. not the whole
massif.''
The New Scientist report was apparently forgotten until 2005 when WWF
cited it in a report called An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat,
and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China. The report credited
Hasnain's 1999 interview with the New Scientist. But it was a
campaigning report rather than an academic paper.
Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Lal and
his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.
When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF
study but went further, suggesting the melting of the glaciers was
"very likely". The IPCC defines "very likely" as having a probability
of greater than 90%.
Glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out
that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not
melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global
temperature rise.
Julian Dowdeswell, director of the Scott Polar Research Institute at
Cambridge University, said: "A small glacier such as the Dokriani
glacier is up to 120m thick. A big one would be several hundred metres
thick and tens of kilometres long. The average is 300m thick so to
melt one at 5m a year would take 60 years."
Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a
mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of
expertise. Lal himself admits he knows little about glaciers. "I am
not an expert. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected
Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was
talking about," he said.
The IPCC last week refused to comment so it has yet to explain how
someone who admits to little expertise on glaciers was overseeing such
a report. Perhaps its one consolation is that the blunder was picked
up by climate scientists who rushed to make it public.
The lead role in that process was played by Graham Cogley, a
geographer from Trent University in Ontario, Canada, who had long been
unhappy with the IPCC's finding.
He traced the IPCC claim back to the New Scientist and then contacted
Pearce. Pearce then re-interviewed Hasnain, who confirmed that his
1999 comments had been "speculative", and published the update in the
New Scientist. ``The reality, that the glaciers are wasting away, is
bad enough. But they are not wasting away at the rate suggested by
this speculative remark and the IPCC report," Cogley said.
"The problem is that nobody who studied this material bothered chasing
the trail back to the original point when the claim first arose."
Pearce said the IPCC's reliance on the WWF was "immensely lazy".
Hasnain could not be reached for comment.
Sid Harth
Bombay News.Net
Saturday 23rd January, 2010 (IANS)
Ruling out his resignation as chief of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) after its goof-up on melting of Himalayan
glaciers, Rajendra Pachauri Saturday said that the UN body will
exercise more surveillance to ensure such a mistake does not occur in
future.
While admitting the mistake once again at a press conference here,
Pachauri said it did not take away from the report's overall
conclusion that glaciers in the Himalayas were receding.
'I have no intention of resigning from my position. I was elected by
acclamation by all the countries of the world and I have a task, I
have got to complete the fifth assessment report and I shall do it and
make sure that we come up with a robust report,' Pachauri told
reporters here.
The fourth IPCC report in 2007 had said that Himalayan glaciers will
disappear by 2035.
The fifth report is scheduled in 2013.
Asked about IPCC's credibility being affected due to the blunder,
Pachauri said: 'I am sure people all over the world, the rational
people, see the larger picture and are not going to be distracted by
this one error which of course is regrettable. They would continue to
repose their faith in the IPCC and I am reasonably sure that there
would be no deviation from that reality.'
'I think our credibility if anything should be enhanced that we have
accepted it was a mistake and we are going to ensure that in future
such a mistake will not occur. We rely on the best scientists from all
over the world. I am reasonably sure that it won't be shaken,' he
said.
He reacted sharply to a suggestion that The Energy and Resources
Institute (TERI) -- the think tank he also heads -- had benefitted
from the alarmist statement that Himalayan glaciers may disappear by
2035.
'TERI is not involved in this mistake,' Pachauri said. When it was
pointed out that Syed Iqbal Hasnain, the scientists whose 1999
statement had given rise to the goof-up, was now a 'senior fellow' at
TERI, Pachauri shot back: 'He was in JNU (Jawaharlal Nehru University)
then. He has been a senior fellow here for the last two years.'
Denying any possibility of taking action against anyone, Pachauri
said: 'Well the authors are not employees of the IPCC. They are merely
providing the inputs and we certainly keep in mind the track records
of the author when we carry out a selection. We absolutely have no
right to take any action against the author.'
Replying to a question on the need to review the IPCC procedure while
writing reports, he said: 'I think our procedure is very robust and
solid. All we need to make sure is that we adhere to implementing
these procedures. I can assure you and the rest of the world that we
are going to very very particular in ensuring that we don't slip up in
following the IPCC procedures.'
Emphasising the need to carry out research work on glacial melting, he
said: 'The Himalayas are very important for us and country should make
an elaborate plan for monitoring, measurement and evaluation of
changes.'
While accepting that the goof-up may have given a boost to climate
sceptics, Pachauri said: 'Climate sceptics are not looking for a
handle. They are looking for anything by which they can demolish the
science of climate change. But truth still prevails and world will
realise the reality of climate change.'
'There is documentary evidence and in Washington DC alone there are
over 1,200 lobbyists being funded to stop anything to do with climate
change policy or legislation and they are being funded by 770
companies. This makes four lobbyists for every member of Congress in
the US and that's only the US.'
http://www.bombaynews.net/story/592498
chhotemianinshallah
today
January 23rd, 2010 SindhToday
New Delhi, Jan 24 (ANI): The environment ministers of China, Brazil
and South Africa are scheduled to meet Union Minister of State for
Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh today to work out a common
strategy ahead of formal-climate change negotiations.
The meeting has been convened with a view to have consultations among
BASIC countries and evolve a coordinated approach to climate change
related issues during 2010 in the run up to the next crucial meet to
be held in Mexico at the end of this year.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Saturday called for maintaining the
unity and solidarity of the four emerging economies – Brazil, South
Africa, India and China.
He addressed the environment ministers of these four major economies,
who called on him, on the eve of a meeting for finalising these
countries’ future course of action ahead of the January 31 deadline
for conveying their stand on the Copenhagen Accord.
The BASIC delegates included National Development and Reform
Commission of China Vice Chairman Xie Zhenhua, Brazilian Environment
Minister Carlos Minc, South African Minister of Water and
Environmental Affairs Buyelwa Sonjica and Jairam Ramesh.
Besides chalking out a climate change strategy, the BASIC members will
work out the targets and actions that the group has to submit under
the Copenhagen Accord by January 31.
India and the three other BASIC nations brokered a deal with the U.S.
to take note of the accord. The accord did not set binding targets for
a cut in greenhouse gas emissions. However, it suggested passage of a
binding deal at the next round of climate talks in Mexico.
While 29 countries, including India, accepted the Copenhagen Accord,
it was opposed by several lesser developed countries, including small
island nations, and Sunday’s meeting is expected to decide how to take
them on board. (ANI)
http://www.sindhtoday.net/news/1/96454.htm
Sid Harth
STAFF WRITER 23:28 HRS IST
New Delhi, Jan 29 (PTI) India today submitted its proposed emission
intensity cut targets by 20-25 per cent by 2020 to the UN, a day
before the world body's January 31 deadline for submitting the climate
change mitigation steps under the Copenhagen Accord.
However, it made it clear to the Secretariat of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that its all domestic
mitigation actions were entirely voluntary in nature and not legally
binding, a position it had maintained at last month's Copenhagen
Summit in Denmark.
"India will endeavour to reduce the emissions intensity of its GDP by
20-25 per cent by 2020 in comparison to the 2005 level through
domestic mitigation actions," said a statement from the Environment
Ministry here.
http://www.ptinews.com/news/492949_India-submits-proposed-emission-cuts-to-UN
Sid Harth
STAFF WRITER 22:32 HRS IST
New Delhi, Jan 30 (PTI) India today conveyed to the UNFCCC information
on the voluntary domestic mitigation actions it will undertake to
reduce the emissions intensity of its GDP by 20-25 per cent by 2020.
The blueprint was submitted by India a day before the January 31 UN
deadline for submitting the climate steps under the Copenhagen Accord.
"While these actions will be in the nature of India's contribution to
the global efforts to address climate change, India has clarified that
its domestic mitigation actions will be entirely voluntary in nature
and will not have a legally binding character," the Ministry of
Environment and Forests said in a press statement.
http://www.ptinews.com/news/492928_India-informs-UNFCCC-about-steps-to-reduce-emissions