‘I was not going to Copenhagen to save humanity but to protect India's right to development’

Jan. 28, 2010 - PRLog -- Has the Kyoto Protocol been delivered a body blow with the emergence of the new block of BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) countries?

It is in intensive care. Efforts are being made by the developed countries, including Japan and Australia, to abandon the protocol. The US never ratified it in the first place.

The fact of the matter is that the developed countries want a single legally binding treaty. We (developing countries) are resisting it. We do not want the Kyoto Protocol to die. We want to revive it and make it part of the climate agenda. So, in that sense we want it to get a new lease of life. In 2010, there will be negotiations for the post-2012 Kyoto Protocol commitments. But let us be clear: the developed nations do not want it to continue. The European nations, the Japanese and Australians do not want to be part of it. It’s an interesting situation.

The Australians complain that the Chinese are not part of the protocol, and nor for that matter are the Americans.

China's emissions are to the tune of 23% of world emissions, while those of the US are 22% of world emissions. That means 55% of the world's emissions are emanating from these two countries which are not part of the protocol.

You seem to be keen to work closely with China.

I've written a book called Chindia which is an abbreviation for China and India. The book was published in 2005. The gist of the book is that India has to learn to engage with China. This is not to say that our differences will be resolved overnight. But I am not a China baiter or a China romantic, nor do I suffer from China phobia. India must learn to engage with the largest economy in the world.

If we had also followed a successful economic growth trajectory, we would have been in the same boat [environmental pollution-wise] as China, which has grown much more spectacularly. Our poor delivery system saved us.

We are facing problems of growth. The traditional equation has been that prosperity is equal to pollution. Which is why I have been stressing the need to evolve a growth path where we invest in new technologies that are environmentally friendly. We can then grow without the environment costs associated with high growth.

That sounds very well but where do we have the resources and the skills to move into this kind of low carbon growth?

We have to make the right choices. India cannot depend on the rest of the world. We have to develop our own financial and managerial resources in order to become a world leader in green technology. This requires us to shed our defensive approach. We should see this not as a threat but as an opportunity. After a long time we are not being portrayed in a negative light. Indians, do not forget, were always being criticised for being obstructionists.

You cannot forget that the developing countries have been critical of the Copenhagen Accord.

Twenty-nine countries, which include Bangladesh, Maldives and Ethiopia, are party to the accord which was made possible because of the BASIC countries. We tried to take the G-77 nations along with us. Their opposition was not to the agreement; rather, they were opposed to the process by which it was arrived at.

Let's face it, there was complete mismanagement by the Danish government which was managing the conference. They showed a complete lack of leadership and were not able to control events. The situation reached such a head that the differences between the Danish prime minister and his climate change minister came to the forefront during the climate meet. The developing countries were reacting negatively to the whole process.

The BASIC ministers were able to formulate a joint strategy and this solidarity continued right through the meet. There were three issues on which the talks had reached an impasse.  First, there was the issue of how should the global goal for 2050 be expressed -- should it be in degree of temperature or in percentage reduction of emissions. Second, what should the regime for monitoring and verification of mitigation be for China and India? And, lastly, should the Copenhagen Accord be a legally binding agreement or should it be a framework for discussion.

There was no headway being made in these three areas and the chair was close to announcing a breakdown of talks in which the blame for this (breakdown) would be placed on the shoulders of the BASIC countries. This meant that President Obama would have had to return to the US with little to show for having attended the meet.

At 7.15 pm on December 18, he walked into the meeting of the BASIC countries and got down to negotiating all three issues. He pointed out that there were the 43 island states who wanted it expressed as 1.5 degree C and not 2 degrees C. But he came around to accepting the latter proposition. He also came around to accepting that the accord would not be a legally binding document.

Let us make it clear that India was not on his radar screen; it was China he was concerned with and the focus was how could (climate change) be monitored in China with the assent of the Chinese government. The Americans gave their suggestions, the BASIC countries gave theirs and the Americans finally agreed to our suggestion.

President Obama's intervention was the turning point. It helped finalise the accord and it was the American president who was responsible for selling what BASIC nations had told him to the Europeans

For the complete story and more information continue reading at:
http://infochangeindia.org/201001278141/Environment/Featu...

Infochange News & Features, January 2010

# # #

News, analysis, reports, opinions from India on poverty, livelihoods, inequality, caste, dalits, adivasis, social exclusion, religious minorities, microfinance, gender, sexuality, women, children, human rights, laws, society, environment, ecology, natural disasters, displacement, education, public health, sustainable development, social justice, NGOs, civil society, rural and urban governance, RTI, infrastructure, rural development, urbanisation, population, water, natural resources, government policy, globalisation, liberalisation, trade and development, disabilities, agriculture, food security, corporate social responsibility, IT for development, documentary films, media, cultural diversity