Post
India changes stance to push for a global deal at Copenhagen
The past week saw some major changes in India's stance before the Copenhagen meeting. India softened its demand of 40% emission reductions from the Annex 1 countries(a Kyoto protocol term for the developed countries expected to agree to binding emission cuts), which is a move that will disappoint many climate change activists across the world, but is a practical step intended to salvage a climate change deal over the next few months.
Until last weekend India was firm in its position, which called for the developed world to reduce their emissions by 40% and also demanded for 1% GDP of Annex 1 countries to finance climate change mitigation in developing nations. India's tough stands over these commitments have been portrayed as 'deal breakers' by the Annex 1 countries.
The environment minister Jairam Ramesh is keen not to be an obstructionist by being more flexible on its stances and suggested that a 25% cut from 1990 levels was more realistic. On the contrary 40 of the G-77 countries and the island nations have been calling for 40% cut, and India's support was considered a key ally to pressurise the Annex 1 countries into accepting this.
The minister also supports the British estimate of USD 100 billion that the Annex 1 countries need to pay to the developing world annually, an estimate on which the rest of the developed world has been silent on. This amount of financing should be more agreeable to the Annex 1 countries, most of which are still suffering from a finance crunch after the recession.
India and China will still not accept any binding cut to their emissions, although India recently suggested international auditing of its domestic mitigation steps. And in a confidential letter to the PM, that was leaked out, Jairam Ramesh seemed keen to take more steps to rein in the USA to a climate change deal. The letter suggests a bilateral agreement in place of the Kyoto Protocol that would be more agreeable to the USA after the Bangkok negotiations, where USA proposed that India must also contribute to financing climate change measures in rest of the world.
All these developments have taken place after the Bangkok negotiations, which saw Annex 1 countries proposing to dilute the Kyoto protocol and start a new framework from the scratch. With 10 weeks remaining before the Copenhagen meeting, there seems to be very little consensus and the rich-poor rift has been growing ever since.
Jairam Ramesh's statements are motivated by appreciation of a desperate need to reach a detailed international agreement in the next few months at least, if not in December. A failure to chalk out any political framework in Copenhagen to reach a comprehensive agreement in the following months would lead to catastrophe. Jeffrey Sachs rightly says that USA, Europe, China, India and few others need start taking practical steps towards such a framework while details can be discussed after December.
Hoping for an effective climate change deal in December now looks utopic and even naive because the numerous recent negotiations have not resulted in any sign of a pending agreement in December. What has been seen are more radical shifts in the tone of the discussion not seen before, perhaps as a result of the pressure of a fast closing deadline?
The recent Indian feet shuffling in the climate change negotiations are certainly disappointing to a large Indian and international crowd, but are an acknowledgement of the Indian government's commitment to reaching a multi-lateral agreement as soon as possible, if not in December.
In December all countries must arrive in Copenhagen not only with political motivations but to embark on a path of taking real steps towards tackling avoiding a global catastrophe. These steps are not going to be easy and will require great political courage. As Gordon Brown said at the Major Economies Forum, "In every era there are only one or two moments when nations come together and reach agreements that make history, because they change the course of history. Copenhagen must be such a time. There are now fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next 50 years and more. if we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement in some future period can undo that choice. By then it will be irretrievably too late."
Comments
Regardless of how represent the new Indian stand, this is a major blow to the climate movement! China and India need to be G77 leaders in pushing for strong demands from the rich countries!
I am very very disappointed. You cannot call this progress or political leadership. This is frankly cowardice.
Abhishek this is a good post on India’s position.
This squarely puts the ball in our court. I’m still waiting for some signs from the USA that it will pass its climate bill.
Don’t you think this is just a selfish step by India to avoid more international pressure on itself?
Read this article which clearly says that India might ‘junk the kyoto’ and sign a separate deal with the US.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Jairam-for-major-shift-at-climate-talks/articleshow/5136979.cms
@Abid I understand your disappointment. But I strongly feel we should not be paralysed because we just cannot reach an agreement. Both parties have to compromise on certain issues.
Of course Copenhagen is not the end of the road, but one of the first steps towards reaching a consensus.
@DC Yes its time that we got more concrete action from USA and EU.
@Sharmistha You are absolutely right that this is a selfish step. But I also believe that this is a step beneficial to the entire world. Although junking kyoto to sign a separate deal will be an unfortunate step. I hope it doesn’t happen!
Indian government - local and central has a poor track record. It neither has the intelligence not the capacity to do anything right. Take the coastal regulations (CRZ) for instance: The law prevents anyone from constructing with 200mt of high tide level? yet, local government in Goa talks of increasing the number of hotels (shacks) on the beach despite the fact that these shacks are responsible for large scale pollution and sand erosion.
Over fishing too has severely depleted fish stocks. The monsoon ban on fishing is a joke. If fish are to have even half a chance, the ban should be for six months.
So long as we have idiots / greedy politicians running the show how can India signing a few agreements make a difference?
On the one hand, it looks like India make an effort to have a deal in Copenhagen, unlike some other actors…
But I really don’t see any good reason to drop the Kyoto agreement. True, the world has changed since 1997, but what? Did the developed world expect India and China to remain poor forever when they signed that agreement? (Maybe they actually did…) Did the developing world pay off our historical debt? No… the only reason tat the US and the EU want a new agreement is that don’t want to pay.
The big problem is that if Kyoto is dropped, why can’t also the COP15 be dropped when it suits the strongest players? For sure the world will look different 10 years from now…
While India has a low per capita carbon footprint, the rich in India have a carbon footprint among the highest in the world.
More than the cuts the rest of the world makes, we should be fighting for technology transfer.
India is being self-righteous about climate change. In developed countries people are willing to make lifestyle changes to reduce their carbon footprint
In India, the ‘educated’ middle and upper middle class are making no such effort.
@Don I agree Indian central and local govt have a lot of flaws. They’ve also succeeded fabulously in other areas. You perhaps don’t realise that most Indian states each have higher population than all the EU countries. Its not the easiest job being the government.
And you should spend some time reading about these deals to understand India’s role before saying it doesn’t make any difference.
Daniel, dropping kyoto would be a big blow to the world! But I don’t think that is going to happen, because all members need to agree to dissolve Kyoto and work on a new deal. Its probably not going to happen.
But this news of India and China signing another climate change treaty with the USA is unsettling. I hope India doesn’t get bullied into doing so.
@Husain, Technology transfer is a major issue on the table. I haven’t seen much progress on it, but Shyam Saram issued a press release which said he was please with technology transfer issues.
I will respectfully disagree with all your other points though. The per capita carbon footprint of Indian rich(top 10%) is higher than the world average but is less than half of USA’s per capita footprint. A simple calculation would make this clear, if you know that Indias per capita figure is 1.1 tons compared to USA’s 20. Of course I do not completely agree that per capita is a good metric for comparison of countrywide emissions. I’m just pointing out a common misconception.
Thankfully Indian middle class folks are making efforts to decrease their footprints. I can’t compare it with the developed world because there are no available figures, but I’ve seen a lot of motivated people doing their bit for the climate. For example the Indian Youth Climate Network is the world’s largest youth network of its kind.
Re: transfer of technologies
I fear the global north is simply talking global south for a grand ride. Has any one found out what technologies are sought to be transferred?
If you decide to set up a manufacturing plant in India, you have two choices; use the latest technology (and I assure you it is quite readily available), or, use obsolete technology that causes a lot of pollution. The difference is in the cost. No points for guessing which option the money conscious Indian entrepreneur selects.
Similarly, when global leaders setup a manufacturing plant in India, they look at the lax local laws and conditions and bring in less-than-latest technology.
My friends, transfer of technology is nothing but transfer of technology that is already currently available over-the-counter. As for the very latest and exotic kind of technology, you might find it is just not practical.
I concur with Daniel here - If Kyoto can be dropped, why can’t COP15?
And the answer here is not that Kyoto won’t be dropped - ‘coz it really doesn’t matter if it’s dropped or not. What matters is are countries (esp developed countries) making the required efforts to abide by it.
If they can get away with not-following Kyoto, they can get away with not-following COP15 as well. Are there any serious whips this time preventing that from happening?
India is doing as much as it can under the auspices of the Kyoto Protocol! It has clear plans laid out for the adaptation, forestry, mitigation, etc. Its the western world which has not done much yet!
I find it distrubing that Indian economy which has been doing well for barely a decade now is going to be strangled by EU, USA demands for emission cuts! Why can’t they think about the hundreds of million people who still have no electricity?
Indian development issues are way more critical than climate change frankly. It sounds crass, but think about it sheer numbers! How many people can you save today by spending a million on their food and health instead of diverting that to an expensive wind mill? India needs to focus more on uplifting its poor! We cannot cut emissions!
Don, I fear there’ll be an alternate economy in developing nations created by companies with the technology patents. And examples of relevant technologies are efficient solar panels, marine turbines, better batteries, etc. Only technologies which are relevant will be governed by the protocol.
If we assume that no law exists regulating pollution, are you saying non-Indian entrepreneurs will chose a non-polluting technology, because they are not ‘money-minded’? Thats laughable. Entire societies have been destroyed by western oil companies in countries with weak laws. India’s biggest environmental disaster, the Bhopal gas tragedy, which killed tens of thousands of people and maimed even more was due to an American company. Please do not make such general statements about people, because they make you look naive.
Yes we have weak laws governing the environment, that’s why we are called a ‘developing nation’.
Amruth, I realised I never thought about that!
I’m not exactly sure how the UN enforces its protocols. For example the Geneva convention has to be followed by all the signing parties, else they’ll face international sanctions. I presume in an extreme case, this will happen with climate change. But like with Kyoto protocol, nobody really achieved anything they were supposed to.
So it all comes down to each country’s commitment I suppose. If you don’t do it, hopefully the citizens can pressurize for action. I hope there’s a more international way though.
Rohit, I agree with you. Its only with the perspective of not retarding development that the Kyoto Protocol puts mandatory commitments on developed nations, while none on developing nations like India
What happens in Copenhagen is certainly going to be interesting. What surprises me, however, is how little media attention is being paid to countries that are being progressive in their stand. I am, in fact, led to wonder if such countries exist.
Can you perhaps mention what those countries (if any) are, and how they are comfortable being progressive? Are there policies they follow which are yet to be emulated by their peers?
Really interesting stuff here…..I do hope we come up with something conclusive in Copenhagen. Maybe I’m an optimist (at this moment)...but its quite possible that all the countries realize that climate change is happening and that they need to do something about it…and right now they’r just negotiating to see what leverage they can get for the final deal….however, in the end, everyone reaches to a mutually conclusive decision.
@Chinmay the truth is there are very few progressive countries, but there sure are quite a few of them. Indonesia, Denmark and UK would be ones I respect.
Indonesia recently announced 26% voluntary cuts in emission and UK is taking firm steps to get EU to agree on some stances.
Well I feel India is more interested in signing a separate kind of deal with the US as Sharmistha pointed out, as US is India’s largest trade partner in carbon credits.
Indonesia’s steps would be a major boost as its the fourth largest country by population and its also a developing country like India. Hence, it would be nice if India follows suit.
This post watch very although the question of the reduction of the CO ² emissions is not negotiable.
It is necessary to think in increase production by new energies. Thus at a time it is less expensive to reduce its consumption than to increase its production.
This is true if the increase is calculated as a percentage.