HOT TOPICS
SPOTLIGHT AGENCIES
India's Climate Control Policy is self-contained
Written By Vasanthkumar Mysoremath - 9 July, 2009
environment Policy Review India Everything else
80 per cent of global green house gases are being spewed by 17 highly developed nations including USofA, European Union, G5, G8 and G17 nations.
These countries are trying to dictate terms and imposing conditions on various grounds on the under developed/developing countries.
Developing countries like India and China are the natural targets of these major economic powers and for obvious reasons. Even if 10 per cent of their GHG emissions are curtailed, their economies will see a serious down turn and the global recession may increase to greater proportions.
But these developed nations will have to find and mend their ways to adopt proper demand/supply management methodologies to avoid wastage and 'out of the box' living conditions of their countrymen.
Whereas under developed/developing countries have embarked upon ambitions programmes for allieviating the poverty, hunger and improving the living conditions of their countrymen, the conditions being imposed by the developed nations to prescribe universally acceptable percentage cut of emissions is very unreasonable.
The developed countries have over a period of time embarked upon uncontrolled emission for improving their economy and living conditions of their subjects and to become the rich nations in the world.
It is their bounden duty to recognise the dangers of the climate change and curtail voluntarily the emission norms before they could force India and China to accept the terms and conditions for climate control. These nations are striving to survive with minimum needs and requirements and they have the right to protest against such arbitrary conditions.
India and China have rightly expressed their resentment for such conditions being imposed upon them and to toe their own organisation and methods for tackling this global issue of climate change.
- What does prajas say?
-Vasanthkumar Mysoremath
COMMENTS
idontspam - 12 July, 2009 - 17:06
India appears to have bent a bit in the face of pressure from industrialized countries.
Some extracts
...Another clear giveaway by India, observers point to, was agreeing to put their entire set of their climate activities up for international scrutiny. Till date India has stated that only those actions that are backed by measureable, reportable and verifiable funds and technologies from rich nations would be up for international scrutiny.
... the mention of using per capita emissions based calculations as the basis of dividing responsibilities found no mention in the MEF declaration that the Indian Prime Minister signed on. The word equity which India has always embedded in its arguments also found a weak mention in passing.
...Even if one assumes some of these were bargaining chips for India to use at the formal climate negotiations, handing over those trump cards so early in the game does not make sense, another observer told
Spin zone
While an 80% cut is the most ambitious target ever considered for the developed world, India and China would still be faced with large cutbacks.
Well I would say for the kind of population the developed countries have 80% is nothing. Per capita level comparisons need to be made and I would go as far as to say link emissions to the per capita wealth.
Green ways to increase wealth of the poor
Vasanthkumar Mysoremath - 13 July, 2009 - 08:56
/....link emissions to the per capita wealth/
Western and Europeans countries have invariably dictated terms to under developed and developing countries with their carrot and stick methods.
Carrots by way of aid / grant or loan at low rates of interest and repayment scheduling and re-scheduling and with moratoriums in payments. Developing nations have fallen prey to these overtures for the past many decades.
And stick method is by threat perceptions in the form of various kinds of direct and indirect sanctions.
It is only recently that India and China have started raising their voice and also concern about the west's deliberate actions for pressurising others to contain GHG emissions as prescribed by them.
This is not acceptable to both India and China because they have their own open agendas for improving their country's GDP, povery alleviation, food for the masses, keeping abreast with the rest of the world in their efforts for improving their international standing etc., all these while adhering to their own agenda for containing GHG emissions.
Budget 2009 has set a clear agenda and commitment for rising a green India with high priorities for investments in renewable energy and alternate energy sources.
Any kind of proposal by G8 or G5 or EU will have to undergo minute scrutiny before they are made acceptable to the rest of the world.
- Vasanth Mysoremath
PM undermined India at climate talks: official
Refusing to acquiesce, it also argued that the rich nations first declare how much of the burden of reducing emissions they were willing to take in the short and long run. But at the Italy meet, India shifted its goal posts and agreed to the 2-degree and several other contentious clauses that it earlier considered non-negotiable.
To rub salt in the wounds
...In the statement, the developed countries had disregarded India’s demand that they agree to take “strong and quantifiable” emission targets running up to 2020.
I thought we would wait till copenhagen and negotiate... WTF happened?
Will force us to think unconventionally
s_yajaman - 16 July, 2009 - 04:50
IDS,
I would wait for a proper paper to report this; TOI IMHO is best left to cover the page3 characters and their shenanigans. Even when the nuclear deal was signed there were enough reports that we had sold out.
Based on what I read, this will mean that India will be capped at 3 tonnes per capita. That is about 2.5 times today's level. Even if the cap were to be extended to 10 tonnes, do we seriously want to go down that path??
If I were an industrialized country I would turn around and tell India that its population problem is its own making. Who asked us to get to 1.2 billion?
In our own interest we need to take to sustainability and encourage non-conventional energy (even if not at a grid level).
Srivathsa
idontspam - 10 July, 2009 - 14:34
I say we wait for Copenhagen. Work out a standard for GHG limits measured at percapita levels and rolled up to the country level. Use this for negotiating an appropriate penalty and compensation mechanism at the Copenhagen summit. Until we agree on compensation numbers we have to take a tough stand on reductions.
Here is a telling stastic. Per a mckinsey study 77% of global power generation capacity to fulfil requirements to 2030 is yet to be built and most of it is going to be in the developing world. If there is any hope, we sign off on targets in Copenhagen or forget about any abatement.
We need to work out very quickly GHG per capita limits, valuation strategy, methods of compensation beyond carbon exchanges.
PRAJA.IN COMMENT GUIDELINES
Posting Guidelines apply for comments as well. No foul language, hate mongering or personal attacks. If criticizing third person or an authority, you must be fact based, as constructive as possible, and use gentle words. Avoid going off-topic no matter how nice your comment is. Moderators reserve the right to either edit or simply delete comments that don't meet these guidelines. If you are nice enough to realize you violated the guidelines, please save Moderators some time by editing and fixing yourself. Thanks!