Home

Crowdfunding Countercurrents

CC Archive

Submission Policy

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

Defend Indian Constitution

#SaveVizhinjam

CounterSolutions

CounterImages

CounterVideos

CC Youtube Channel

Editor's Picks

Feed Burner

Read CC In Your
Own Language

Bradley Manning

India Burning

Mumbai Terror

Financial Crisis

Iraq

AfPak War

Peak Oil

Globalisation

Localism

Alternative Energy

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections

Palestine

Latin America

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

Kandhamal Violence

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

About Us

Disclaimer

Fair Use Notice

Contact Us

Subscribe To Our
News Letter

Name


E-mail:



Search Our Archive



Our Site

Web

 

 

 

 

How India Failed At Paris Climate Conference

By ToxicsWatch Alliance

26 December, 2015
Countercurrents.org

India failed to do even what a small country like Nicaragua did in the
Paris Climate Conference by raising its flag questioning the
autocratic change introduced in the final draft at the last moment
(from 'shall' to 'should' ) while adopting the 12 page long Paris
Agreement dated 12th December, 2015. The Agreement being a legal text
required application of basic legal knowledge by India. In law schools
across the globe students are taught that “shall” is “mandatory”. The
drafters of legal documents are trained into the use of “shall” as it
conveys “a duty to” be performed. It conveys obligation. Had “shall”
been not important 76 pages of Words and Phrases, a multi volume work
of legal definitions would not have been devoted to case laws around
it. The word “should” does not express a legal obligation, the word
“shall” expresses a legal requirement.

Initially, Article 4.4 of the Draft Agreement read: “Developed country
Parties shall continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide
absolute emission reduction targets. Developing country Parties should
continue enhancing their mitigation efforts…” This formulation aptly
captured the historic responsibilities of rich countries and
differentiated responsibilities of poorer countries. But disregarding
the voice of a Central American country like Nicaragua which is a
member of Group of 77, succumbing to the USA’s demand shall was
substituted with should. India’s decision to maintain a deafening
silence when the voice of a fellow member from G77 was disregarded is
contrary to its stature.

The Agreement adopted by the countries that are Parties to United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which was
adopted on 9th May, 1992, is an articulation of how
‘climate-inequality’ shapes the text of an international treaty
supposedly aimed at climate justice and for the protection of Mother
Earth. Had India done what Nicaragua did Paris Conference would have
found it difficult to ignore.

Like other world governments India too adopted an Ostrich policy with
regard to climate crisis under the influence of undemocratic economic
organizations and autocratic dictates of a supposedly democratic
government.

What Indian environment minister, Prakash Javadekar did not disclose
to the Parliament has already been admitted by Nozipho Joyce
Mxakato-Diseko, chairperson of the Group of 134 developing countries
(G77 and China Group). India is a member of this Group. Diseko has
revealed that Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) for
mitigating climate change is “a perversion of the principle of common
but differentiated responsibilities” because it undermines the “legal
obligation in accordance with historical responsibilities for finance”
accepted under the bullying influence of USA and its allies. It is
quite outrageous that INDCs are not legally enforceable.

The paragraph 52 of the Decision of CoP 21 makes a categorical
declaration that Article 8 of the Paris Agreement which deals with the
issue of addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse
effects of climate change “does not involve or provide a basis for any
liability or compensation.”Although such announcement sets a
regressive precedent in international negotiations, given the fact
Paris Agreement is not legally binding by implication, this attempt to
escape liability for loss and damage appears unsuccessful. These
provisions and INDCs of top polluters of “High Ambitions Group” show
that they are unwilling to pay the “ecological debt” that global North
owes to the global South.

As per Article 2 of the Agreement, it aims to hold the increase in the
global temperature to well below 2 degree Celsius (C) and to pursue
efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degree C above
pre-industrial levels to “significantly reduce the risks and impacts
of climate change.”

What is charitably referred to as “dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system” in the text of the UNFCCC is in
reality an act of industrial warfare against climate and its allied
ecosystem whose impact has become glaring. It is quite surprising that
green house gas emissions from the war industry which is reaping
unprecedented profits amidst conflicts around natural resources has
not been included as one of the key sources of climate crisis.

It may be recalled that the false solution of carbon trade and off
setting was introduced in the Kyoto Protocol at the behest of USA
which had made it a pre-condition to sign the Protocol. Notably, after
diluting the Protocol USA unsigned the Protocol. Unmindful of the
fraud and corruption ridden carbon trade projects, instead of
discarding this fake remedy the Paris Agreement makes way for global
carbon market through Article 6 of the Agreement. It makes space for
“voluntary contribution” among countries in the implementation of
their emission reduction targets and “to allow for higher ambition in
their mitigation and adaptation actions”. It creates a new class of
carbon assets namely, “internationally transferred mitigation
outcomes” (ITMOs) for trading and “support for results-based payments
to implement policy approaches”. This new mechanism of UNFCCC has been
incarnated as Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM) as main
mitigation tool in place of pre-existing Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM) and Joint Implementation post-2020.

Richer countries became prosperous and dominant due to carbon emission
since 1750. Between 1850 and 2011, USA, European Union, Russian
Federation, Japan and others contributed over 2/3rd of total global
emissions. Both USA and EU both emitted 10 times more CO2 each than
India. It is the stock of this emission in the atmosphere which has
caused the climate crisis. Paris Agreement fails to address the issue
of past emissions and remains focused on current and future flow of
carbon in the atmosphere.

Over 160 countries have submitted their INDCs to UNFCCC taking into
account both their historical responsibility as well as their current
capability to act. It is evident from the “synthesis report” that the
ambition of all major developed countries fall well short of their
fair shares unlike majority of developing countries. The contribution
of USA and EU each represents about a 5th of their fair shares, and
Japan a mere 10th of its fair share. Notably, developed countries have
been outsourcing their carbon-intensive industries to developing
countries like India. If these ‘consumption-based’ or ‘imported’
emissions are taken into account, emissions of developed countries are
in reality as much as a fourth higher than reported.

Admittedly, the estimated aggregate greenhouse gas emission levels in
2025 and 2030 resulting from INDCs do not fall within least –cost 2
degree C but rather lead to a projected level of 55 gigatons in 2030.
The Decision underlines that in order to hold the increase in global
average temperature to below 2 degree C above pre-industrial levels
there is a need for reduction of emissions to 40 gigatons.

It is quite bizarre that while almost all the countries have stated
their commitments to reduce emissions from 1990 levels, USA has
decided to count its reduction in emission using 2005 as the base
year. Thus, its commitment of reduction is only 14 % instead of 28 %
as has been claimed quite deceptively.

Such announcements by the top polluters are far from what was required
to be done based on scientific evidence to limit global temperature
rise by 2°C. There was a need to cut emissions to the tune of 70 %
below 2010 levels by 2050 to be on the path of limiting 2°C
temperature increase.

What is not being paid attention to is how China’s agreement with the
USA in November 2014 wherein it agreed to match its emissions with
that of the USA at 12 tonnes per capita per year in 2030, thus,
appropriating the carbon space between them had pre-determined the
outcome of Paris Conference. This happened in a situation wherein
corporations have emerged as the state and in the case of China, state
is the corporation. The state of affairs in the world trade regime and
most countries is moving in the same direction because of the
regulatory capture by the corporations.

Where does India stand?

It has been estimated that India’s current per capita income is close
US’s per capita income in the 1890s. Like most developed countries
where coal remains unavoidable, India continues to argue that it will
continue to use coal as its primary source in its energy mix.
What is not being talked about is the adverse health impact of
hazardous wastes like fly ash and bottom ash from coal based power
plants which is contributing to massive air pollution
crisis-‘airpocalyses’ and suffocating populations in India and China.
The heavy metal and radiation laden ash which is being used for making
bricks by construction industry is compromising public health in an
unprecedented manner.

Paris Agreement has a stark lesson for Indian Government and its INDC
which promoted
“Nuclear Power as a safe, environmentally benign and economically
viable source to meet the increasing electricity needs of the
country.” The word “nuclear” does not appear in the Agreement despite
efforts by countries like India and agencies like International Atomic
Energy Agency, World Nuclear Association, US Nuclear Energy Institute
and organizations like Nuclear for Climate (NfC) who misleadingly
claims to be grassroots environmental group. In a major goof up, NfC
claimed that radioactive waste is good for the climate. It is high
time India followed the path of those who have no nuclear power
reactors and remain opposed to nuclear power.

It is high time India followed the path of those who have no nuclear
power reactors and remain opposed to nuclear power. Countries like
Australia, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,
Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Israel, Malaysia, New
Zealand Norway and Germany merit emulation in this regard.

India should join efforts to ensure that nuclear power is kept out of
the $ 100 billion/year Green Climate Fund (GCF), a very small player
in climate finance established five years ago in Cancun, Mexico. It
should struggle with other countries to ensure that GCF creates an
accountability mechanism and adopts an information disclosure policy.

India should do all it can to cut down its emissions through domestic
action through amendments in the Environment Protection Act and Rules
therein given the fact that despite India having the lowest per capita
emissions in the world. Its measures must be tangible as it is the
world’s third largest emitter.

The reality of average an Indian emitting 10 times less than an
American, 4 times less than a French national, one-third of Chinese
per capita emissions and less than half the global average should not
become a reason for any complacency given the fact that the carbon
footprint of 1 % of the wealthy class is being veiled by 823 million
poor class of the country and the emissions of top 10 % of urban
Indians is about 27 times the emissions of the bottom 10 % of rural
India. This creates a compelling logic for delinking economic
prosperity from carbon emissions which depletes the principal
amount-the natural capital, the Mother Earth.

Meanwhile, World Bank Group feigned surprise on 17th December “to see
the extent and detail on carbon markets” included in the Paris
Agreement that paves the way for “Carbon Markets 2.0”.

Paris Agreement panders to the whims and fancies of commercial czars
who are obstinately commodifying and monetizing nature and interfering
with climate and allied ecosystems. The natural resource dependent
communities are facing unprecedented deprivation. This has created an
episteme that blindly bulldozes technical and market solutions as
“real” solutions.

The outcome of CoP 21 reveals how the entire exercise suffers from
structural democracy deficit wherein "Mother Earth" and social and
public institutions have become subordinate to institutions of profit.

For several years, the formal initiatives to mitigate and adapt to
impacts of climate change has largely been unsuccessful because of an
embedded insincerity of the institutions involved. They fail to decode
the shared fate in the global village which is faced with climate
induced emergencies and disasters. The Agreement fails to make top
polluters liable for “dangerous anthropogenic interference” and for
endangering human ecosystem which is the substratum for the existence
of living beings.

A new, non-market, climate finance mechanism is needed to support the
formalization and expansion of mitigation and technology transfer as a
genuine solution to combat the propensity of promoting free trade in
carbon at the cost of climate system. Climate talks remain relevant
because fate of the communities and global order is linked to the
decision by the richest countries to undergo mandatory fossil fuel
de-addiction.

In effect, despite the brave effort of a G77 country, Paris conference
failed to save climate and intra generational and inter-generational
equity from the banks and markets that threaten our planet by
integrating carbon pricing policies in all sectors of economy. India
should have taken ethical leadership by declaring carbon trading as a
fake solution and by choosing not “to pursue the reckless and
environmentally harmful path to development” that the developed
countries have taken so far.

For Details:
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Mb: 08227816731, 09818089660
[email protected]
Web: www.toxicswatch.org



 



 

Share on Tumblr

 

 


Comments are moderated