Font Size 
India, a gas bag on global warming
Published on Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 03:02, Updated on Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 03:30 in Nation section
Tags: Face The Nation, Climate Change
BREAKTHROUGH OR BREAKDOWN? The Bali summit could not take substantive steps to fight global warming.
The planet is overheating and so are the arguments between the developed and developing countries on who should cut carbon emissions first. Last week 190 countries met in Bali to discover how the world can arrive at a new global treaty to lay down specific targets to reduce emission of greenhouse gases. But the summit ended in a stalemate.
The Indian delegation was led by Science and Technology Minister Kapil Sibal, who made it clear that the country would not accept any binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
And that brings us to the question of the day that was asked on CNN-IBN show Face the Nation: Is India doing enough to combat global warming?
Director of Centre for Science and Environment Sunita Narain tried to discuss the issue threadbare.
Narain began the discussion by saying that the world leaders had failed to strike a deal in combating emission.
“Bali was a very important opportunity for the world. We know that countries like the US and EU have to do a lot more to cut emissions but in Bali, I believe, world leaders failed us all. They did not have the leadership to say that we will put aside our petty economic interests,” Narain said.
Many believe that Kapil Sibal was aggressive and he successfully fought off impositions on any binding targets on reducing greenhouse gases. But was it required to be aggressive about India’s national interest or should he have joined the world leaders to have targets on everybody.
Agreeing with the Science and Technology Minister’s stance at the summit, Narain said, “I think the minister did right in fighting off the targets on countries like India and China. I do not criticise the minister for being aggressive at that moment. But I am critical of the fact that the Indian government did not do enough to be able to assert the fact that we needed targets from the rich nations. How can all the countries give in to pressure from one country, which is the US.”
Are we hurtling towards extinction?
The main points of difference at the Bali summit were over references to the depth of emissions cuts needed. The US opposed any reference to actual emissions targets and over the role of developing countries in sharing the burden of making these cuts.
In the past year, the debate on climate change has changed in character. The publication of the findings of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in three parts between February and June, was a watershed.
The panel, drawing on the work of more than 3,500 leading climate scientists, found that the evidence for climate change was "unequivocal", that human actions in burning fossil fuels were to blame and that if the world were allowed to warm by 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, some of the effects – droughts, floods, storms, sea level rises – would be "irreversible" and "catastrophic".
So, is this the time to discuss rich country versus poor country or is it time to pull up our socks before it is too late?
“This is absolutely the time for us to find a way ahead. But that is not going to come from countries like India and China saying ‘just because you are not able to cut emissions let us roll over and play dead.’ It’s not going to happen,” Narain said.
“The elements of the deal, given the urgency, have to be twofold. The rich nations, not only the ones who have created the problem but also the nations who today contribute to the bulk of emissions, have to take on bindings and tough commitments. The rich nations have increased the emissions by 11 per cent,” she added.
The US has 4 per cent of the world’s population and contributes one fourth of global emissions of heat trapping and greenhouse gases. The US, of course, is not a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol. So, without the US committing is there any future in combating climate change?
To these statistics Narain added “another frightening statistic.” “Between 1990 and 2005 the US has actually increased its emissions by 20 per cent. So, this is one country, which refuses to negotiate on climate change because it says it will affect its lifestyle,” an exasperated Narain said.
Experts agree that the need of the hour at least in India is to spread awareness within the country and take climate change to a more substantive level rather than keeping it just as a political battle between the developed and developing countries.
Concluding the discussion Narain said, “This is not a political battle. This is a battle for economic space in the world. The poor nations have to argue for ecological space. We can avoid emissions in the future but for that let us be clear that it will cost a lot. For high-end technology money is required which the rich countries are not willing to invest in. Here is an opportunity for a global deal but we are not going for these negotiations with a proactive stand. We are just keen to win some brownie points in a fake deal.”
Final results of the poll:
92 per cent – No
8 per cent – Yes
| Related links: | |
Read Comment | Post Comment
With recent technological innovations humans are trying hard to play "God", but they don't realize that with their seemingly innocent
Read Comment
Read more comment »