TEEKA LAGAO !!

Your Vote. Your Right. Your Might

Go Ahead and plan your role in strengthening our democracy.Excercise your right to vote.

Why should you vote?

- Elected Representatives make the laws and policies that govern how we live. So why not have a say in that.

- Voting is the single most powerful way to send a message to governments and politicians. Even more powerful than candle-marches and hunger-strikes. In assembly elections held recently, the longest-serving democratically elected Communist government in the world was ousted from West Bengal,  the 2G-scam tainted DMK was thrown out of power in Tamil Nadu, the illegal mining BJP lords of Karnataka were defeated and the all-powerful Behenji Mayawati was rejected by UP’s voters.

- If you don’t vote you really should have no right to complain about government decisions you don’t like (no matter how much they actually suck).

-India is the largest democracy in the world. The right to vote and more importantly the exercise of franchise by the eligible citizens is at the heart of every democracy. We, the people, through this exercise of our right to votehave the ultimate power to shape the destiny of country by electing our representatives who run the Government and take decisions for the growth,development and benefit of all the citizens.

 MY VOTE MY GOVERNMENT…MAKE THE REAL DIFFERENCE

Like every year, you know that this July when it rains, you will be stuck in traffic. The streets will fill up and you may have to get out of your car and trudge home through the rivulets, praying that there isn’t an open manhole where you walk. You are going to complain about the clogged drains, and the slums, and the hawkers getting in the way; the crowded trains that stink; the malaria; and then talk about how India needs to be more like London or Singapore, where everything is amazing. Sounds familiar, right?

It’s okay though. You know where to lay the blame – The Goverment. A couple of curses thrown its way and you will carry on through the disorder because that is how it must be. You don’t have the time to bother with all that. Ultimately, you have a nice home to go to, where you can put your feet up and lose yourself in that daily soap. We know. You work hard. You have no time to go vote on a Thursday afternoon. And if you get some time off, well, you need a break. You aren’t going to run across the city for something as pointless as voting.

But this monsoon, when you’re stuck in traffic somewhere, trying to get to a doctor so you can get tested for malaria, we want you to remember that Thursday afternoon and blame yourself. If you don’t vote, you can’t complain. This year, we urge you to vote.

So you’re young, a student, and you believe the world is your oyster because India is booming and the opportunities are many. Why should you care about the economy and rising prices? There’s still time right?

Wrong. Time is short, and you should really be asking the government what they’re doing about this.

BE SMART VOTE SMART.

PROUD TO BE VOTER !!  READY TO VOTE !!

What are the basic do’s and don’t’s as polling day

approaches?

 As a voter you should also know the aspects that are considered as

corrupt practices or electoral offences:

(i) Offering or accepting money or any other gratification either to vote for

or not to vote for a particular candidate.

(ii) Inducement by way of liquor, feast, gifts, etc. to vote for or not to vote

for a particular candidate.

(iii) Inducement to vote or not to vote for a particular candidate on the

grounds of religion, caste, community, sectarian beliefs or place of

birth.

(iv) Threat to an elector of ex-communication if he votes for or against a

particular candidate.

(v) Offer of free conveyance to any elector to go to or from any polling

Station.

"The beauty of a woman must be seen in her eyes , because that is the doorway to her heart - the place where love resides."

Why Women Cry !!
Watch her eyes 


"A little boy asked his mother, "Why are you crying?" "Because I'm a woman , " she told him.

"I don't understand , " he said. His Mom just hugged him and said , "And you never will."

Later the little boy asked his father , "Why does mother seem to cry for no reason?"

"All women cry for no reason , " was all his dad could say.

The little boy grew up and became a man , still wondering why women cry...

Finally he put in a call to God. When God got on the phone , he asked , "God , why do women cry so easily?"

God said

"When I made the woman she had to be special.

I made her shoulders strong enough to carry the weight of the world, yet gentle enough to give comfort.

I gave her an inner strength to endure childbirth and the rejection that many times comes from her children.

I gave her a hardness that allows her to keep going when everyone else gives up , and take care of her family through sickness and fatigue without complaining.

I gave her the sensitivity to love her children under any and all circumstances , even when her child has hurt her very badly.

I gave her strength to carry her husband through his faults and fashioned her from his rib to protect his heart.

I gave her wisdom to know that a good husband never hurts his wife , but sometimes tests her strengths and her resolve to stand beside him unfaltering.

And finally , I gave her a tear to shed. This is hers exclusively to use whenever it is needed."

"You see my son , " said God , "the beauty of a woman is not in the clothes she wears , the figure that she carries , or the way she combs her hair.

The beauty of a woman must be seen in her eyes , because that is the doorway to her heart - the place where love resides."

Water Management Requires Global Perspective, Local Solutions.

There is no shortage of troubling statistics to prove that water management is a global challenge. About 1.2 billion people currently face water scarcity, and a population expected to grow to 9 billion by 2050 will put increased strain on already pressured water supplies worldwide.

But while the water challenge is truly global, it also demands solutions that are tailored to local conditions. Availability, use, and quality of water vary dramatically from place to place.

How Businesses Manage Local and Global Water Risks

Multinational companies and their investors require a global perspective when making strategies or allocating resources across their supply chains and portfolios – like a panoramic picture that shows a whole landscape. However, they also need accurate, detailed, local data to support specific decisions – like a close-up photo of a single flower. Just as a photographer needs the right lens to create the desired image, companies need tools to understand water risk from different perspectives.

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and World Resources Institute are collaborating to provide global context for water risk in a way that is relevant and meaningful even at the local level. Both organizations have created tools for better understanding water risk around the world .

About 1.2 billion people currently face water scarcity.

New Indicators to Evaluate the Full Spectrum of Water Risks

One factor that widens the gap between global coverage and local accuracy in measuring water risks is the complex ways in which those risks can manifest themselves. Physical water risks—such as lack of sufficient quantity, inadequate quality, and competition over use—are relatively concrete and are well-covered  and the Water Risk Filter. It is more difficult to capture the risks related to unpredictable water regulation, poor resource governance, and reputational challenges companies can face if they’re seen as poor water stewards in their communities. New indicators should be developed that can provide some insight into these “soft” water risks. Even though such global indicators will not provide a perfect picture of governance, regulatory, and reputational risks facing all companies in all places, they will be a useful guide for companies seeking to better understand where and how they are exposed to those complex threats.

And we’re not alone: Many other groups offer water assessment tools in this arena, each bringing new technologies and data to the table. Ultimately, however, a tool is just that. It can’t make decisions, implement policy, engage with communities, or direct investments. Use of any of these water risk tools must be a starting point, not an end in itself.

Water Risk to Business Is No Small Drip .

More than 1.2 billion people already face water scarcity.

After the World Economic Forum in Davos , I was struck by how often the issue of water risk was raised by business executives. As the global economic turmoil is receding, many CEOs and global leaders are turning to other threats—and water is high on the list. For the second year in a row, water crises were named among the top four global risks at the WEF.

It’s easy to see why. More than 1.2 billion people already face water scarcity. By 2025, two-thirds of the world population will experience water stress. That’s largely due to population increase and climate change, but also behavior patterns: Water use grew twice as fast as population growth in the 20th century. The “food-water-energy nexus” was one of the top four megatrends to watch in the recently released Global Trends 2030 report by the U.S. National Intelligence Council.

CEOs increasingly recognize that water is essential for their business models and economic growth. Disrupted availability of affordable, clean water leads to business interruptions, increased commodity costs, and reduced earnings. More than half of the Global 500 companies that responded to the 2012 Carbon Disclosure Project Global Water Report cited “detrimental” water-related impacts. These effects include property damage from drought or flooding, higher prices for water itself, poor water quality requiring on-site pre-treatment, and fines and litigation over pollution. According to the report, the associated costs for some companies ran as high as $200 million, up 38 percent from the previous year.

Measuring and Managing Water Risk

Until recently, it has been difficult to accurately assess the business risks related to water. Water risks are unequally distributed around the globe, and businesses have lacked geographically specific information to understand the water problems they face. Further, much of the available information is outdated or the data is not precise enough to be useful to grasp geographic differences. Given the importance of water, we are flying frighteningly blind.

Some time back, WRI (World Resource Institute) launched a new online platform to be a go-to source for accurate and high-quality water-risk information. The mapping tool, the Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas, offers an unprecedented level of resolution and a comprehensive picture of water risks around the world. It enables companies, investors, governments, and the public to assess risks using 12 indicators. It breaks down water quantity and quality and reputational and regulatory factors, giving users a multi-faceted view of the particular water challenges they face.

In the coming months, a new projection tool will be added that will allow users to better manage risks in light of likely impacts from climate change, population, and economic growth. The tool is geared toward business. GE and Goldman Sachs are two of the founding members, and there are now more than a dozen partners on the project. WRI also worked with partners in academia, government, and civil society to develop the tools.

Several major companies have already used earlier versions. McDonalds, for example, asked its top 350 suppliers’ facilities to use the tool to report on local water risks at their facilities. Other companies—including Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, Owens-Corning, and Procter & Gamble (also a funder)—have used the tool to evaluate risks.

How Businesses Respond

Water risks are increasingly compromising businesses. 

In response, companies are realizing they need to work with governments and local communities to improve water management. Some industries are beginning to define water stewardship principles and water accounting standards. For example, 45 major companies representing hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue endorsed the U.N.’s Global Compact CEO Water Mandate, an initiative designed to help companies develop, implement and disclose water sustainability policies and practices.

In Davos, a group of CEOs—including Shell CEO Peter Voser, and executives from Dow, DuPont, Siemens, McKinsey and others—launched an initiative to address the Food-Energy-Water Stress Nexus. Through this initiative, companies are looking to partner with governments, communities, and non-profits to better understand the complex linkages between food, energy, and water. They also hope to develop local approaches to reduce resource risk and enhance economic resilience.

What is discussed  in Davos was encouraging. Many businesses understand what’s at stake and are beginning to adapt their practices. Hopefully, the companies that are leading will drive more businesses to manage their growing water risks.

How to Create Future-Proof Leaders !!

When it comes to leadership development, a fundamental flaw occurs much more often than any other. Here's what it is and how to fix.

Most growing organizations reach a point where the concept of leadership needs to move from being inherent and presumed to something more structured and planned.

It's at this stage that many businesses first establish a leadership development program--a formalized or semi-formalized process of developing future leaders, usually by a combination of teaching and mentoring/coaching.

The literature surrounding the design of leadership development programs is immense (here are the 632,000 Google results alone), and the debate about what makes for a successful program can get heated. But when it comes to developing the right kind of leaders, I've noticed one fundamental flaw recurs much more often than any other: the leadership development is conducted in the wrong tense.

How are you framing leadership? 

Sounds arcane and obtuse, I know, but bear with me. Here's what I mean:

Most leadership development programs are based on an underlying set of core competencies-- the skills, behaviors and attitudes that we want our newly coined leaders to exhibit. After all, if we're going to develop leaders, we'd better first establish clearly what sort of leaders we want, right?

And this is where the question of 'tense' arises.

You see, most organizations (whether they do it by themselves or hire a firm of consultants to do it for them) identify their set of core competencies, the foundational building blocks of their leadership development, by asking a version of this question:

"What skills, behaviors and attitudes do leaders need, in order to succeed in this organization?"

Take a look at that question, and see if you can spot the inherent flaw.

It lies, as I have hinted already, in the tense in which it is asked. The question presumes that the organization's current state will continue. It predicates a definition of leadership that maintains the status quo. In essence, it will result in a program that develops leaders much like the leaders we already have.

And that may or may not be what we need for the future. To succeed in changed circumstances. To grow our business beyond what it is now.

In the leadership programs I develop, we start with a question couched in the future tense, and centered on the organization, not on the individual:

"What skills, behaviors and attitudes do leaders need, in order for this organization to succeed in the future?"

Grab a yellow pad and pen, and try answering that question for your own organization. Even if you're not considering a leadership development program, I think you'll find the answers revealing and challenging.

Adapting to Climate Change: The Private Sector’s Role !!

The World Bank estimates that developing countries need $70-$100 billion per year through 2050 to meet current and future climate adaptation needs.

Adapting to the impacts of climate change—like heat waves, increased floods, and natural disasters—is an enormous challenge. It’s also one that comes with an enormous price tag. Although it’s difficult to calculate the extent of the costs, the World Bank estimates that developing countries need $70 to $100 billion USD per year through 2050 to meet their current and future climate adaptation needs.

The Climate Policy Initiative, however, estimates that in 2011, only $4.4 billion USD in adaptation finance went to developing countries. This leaves a gap of anywhere from $65.6 to $95.6 billion USD per year between what developing countries need and what developed nations are giving.

So who can help fill this gap?

The private sector may be the answer to this question. Already, proactive private companies are beginning to address climate change in their investments and business planning. With a little work on the part of the public sector, the private sector may be inclined to invest more in adaptation—to reduce their own risks, as well as those of vulnerable populations. Our new five-part blog series, Adaptation and the Private Sector, will outline some of the roles the private sector should play and the ways to support their contributions to climate change adaptation.

But first, it’s important to understand the progress that’s already being made and the challenges that exist.

How Is the Private Sector Responding to the Impacts of Climate Change?

While corporations and businesses have reacted to international and domestic pressures to curb their CO2 emissions and invest in mitigation, they have been less engaged in building climate-resilient communities. They have little incentive to invest in an area that’s largely seen as a public good. If you look closely, however, you see that they are starting to make some progress.

First, the private sector is engaged in adaptation; their goods and services are just not labeled as such. Businesses and individuals have a desire to protect their assets and livelihoods from climate change and are willing, if finances are available, to spend money on goods and services that provide this protection. Because demand is there, businesses will respond with new products. These products, however, aren’t marketed as “climate-resilient” and don’t come with an “adaptation-friendly” sticker. For example, buildings with a rooftop garden are marketed as green buildings or energy-saving strategies, yet they also provide adaptation benefits in the form of alleviating heat island effect.

Second, most private sector action on climate change has gone to “climate-proofing” operations. Companies are relocating buildings to low-risk areas, purchasing weather insurance, and reducing water and energy usage—which are all good practices that protect them against climate hazards. In some instances, such activities may even help vulnerable populations, as is the case when corporations climate-proof their supply chains. For global companies, suppliers can be small-holder farmers, miners, or artisans in developing countries. These suppliers can build their adaptive capacity when corporations make their own supply chains more resilient, such as giving farmers access to drought-resistant seeds. The public sector should look to support and encourage further action in this area.

Challenges to the Private Sector

The private sector also faces a variety of challenges when dealing with climate change impacts. Addressing some of these challenges could go a long way toward creating a better enabling environment for the private sector.

First, businesses need better, more actionable information on climate change and its projected impacts. Levels of long-term uncertainty are difficult to take into account when making short-term investment decisions. For example, a survey of 72 businesses found that most respondents thought climate change information was hard to incorporate into their business plans because of uncertainty about the magnitude, timescale, and precise location of climate impacts. Furthermore, scientific information about the climate system is difficult to decipher for many audiences, which compounds the challenge of making informed decisions on how to best respond. Businesses, therefore, need information from public and academic sources that help them make informed decisions on dealing with climate change impacts.

Second, while more and more corporations are investing in making their operations more climate-resilient, few small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are able to do so, due to lack of resources. They are unlikely to have in-house experts on climate change and sustainability, and their funds to bring in outside consultants are limited. SMEs, therefore, are less prepared for climate impacts and more likely to suffer from them. Furthermore, SMEs in developing countries often do not have key types of affordable financial products—such as loans and insurance—available to them. This lack of financial and technical resources makes it difficult for SMEs to invest in adaptation planning.

This is by no means an exhaustive list—the challenges to scaling up adaptation finance are numerous and complex. But by understanding these key limiting factors and acknowledging the current actions the privates sector is taking, we can already start to see ways that governments and the international community can support, encourage, and scale-up private sector adaptation actions and investments. Understanding the obstacles can help the public sector engage the private sector in making vulnerable communities more climate-resilient.

3 Ways Multinational Corporations Can Help Vulnerable Communities Adapt to Climate Change

Multinational companies (MNCs) typically have operations and supply chains in many parts of the world. The way they respond to climate change, therefore, can affect many populations, including poor communities in developing countries, where many people are especially vulnerable to heat waves, sea level rise, and other climate change impacts. MNCs sometimes find themselves in tension with local groups and the environment, but they can also play an important role in making these communities more climate-resilient.

Here are three ways that MNCs can contribute to climate change adaptation in developing countries:

1) Building a Resilient Workforce

As MNCs begin addressing climate risk in their operations and supply chains, many risk reduction measures can benefit low-wage workers in developing countries. These measures can make companies more climate-resilient, but they can also make people and their communities more climate-resilient. Examples include: teaching farmers how to use less water in water-scarce regions; making anti-malaria medicine available to those working in rainy, damp locations; installing drainage corridors for fields that flood; and teaching emergency response and evacuation procedures to urban workers.

Some companies are already helping workers in their supply chains become more climate-resilient. Starbucks is giving trainings to coffee farmers in Indonesia, helping them learn composting, pruning, and shading techniques that help protect coffee plants from rising temperatures. Levi’s is teaching rain-harvesting techniques to cotton farmers in Brazil, Pakistan, India, and West Africa so they can conserve water in dry regions. By helping workers learn to adapt to current and future climate conditions, as well as assisting them in responding to disasters, MNCs can make both their own supply chains and communities more resilient.

2) New Goods and Services

Climate change poses an opportunity for MNCs to create new climate-resilient goods and services. Some individuals, households, and businesses will demand products that protect assets against climate change. MNCs—with their financial, technical, and human resources—are in a good position to respond to this demand.

Insurance companies are already responding with new insurance products that address future climate risks and reach vulnerable populations. Munich Re offer micro-insurance schemes aimed at disaster-prone regions in developing countries, while ACA developed a dengue-fever health insurance plan in Indonesia, which covers a disease that will likely become more prevalent in a warmer world.

3) Redesigning Current Products

Besides developing new goods and services, MNCs can redesign current products to be more climate-resilient. Products that use a large amount of electricity, water, timber, or other natural resources can be made more efficient, as these resources may become scarcer or more degraded in the future.

For example, OMO, a laundry detergent produced by Unilever and sold all over the developing world, has been used by millions of low-income consumers for years. Recently, Unilever redesigned OMO, coming up with a newer version called "One Rinse" that requires less water for laundry and is targeted at people that wash garments by hand. The company estimates that the new detergent can save 30 liters of water per wash – especially beneficial to populations facing future water shortages. Other ways to redesign products include creating energy-efficient appliances or improving the efficiency of wood-intensive products, such as stoves, to decrease deforestation.

Businesses can also update their services to include those related to climate change adaptation and natural resource management. For example, microfinance banks can provide financial services for adaptation practices.

While many MNCs know that climate change impacts will affect their inputs and outputs, many still are moving forward slowly with building a resilient workforce and developing adaptation goods and services. Policymakers may be able to help MNCs speed up their action through smart incentives and programs, something we examine in the fourth and fifth blog posts in this series. By tackling climate change the right way, companies can reduce their risk, find new markets, and help build the resilience of communities.

[COP-19/UNFCC] Warsaw Climate Change Conference

During Nov 2013, Warsaw, Poland hosted:

COP19	19th Conference of the Parties (COP19) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
CMP9	9th Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to Kyoto Protocol (CMP9)

Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDG)

• Oil rich:Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Bolivia and Malaysia
• Coal rich: China and India
• Chillar party.:Cuba, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Thailand.

Ok, What does this gang want?

• They want strict separation between ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ countries’ responsibility in climate change
• @Developed countries: You were the first nations to industrialize. You’re the one that cause this global warming. So, you’re obliged to cut emission. Our emissions are different from yours, for ours are produced in the process of industrialization while you are already in the post-industrialization era. In short you’re the main villain.
• @Developing countries: we’ve responsibility to combat climate change. but we want no legally binding obligation to cut our emission. The developed nations (you) must not prescribe/preach us about climate change. We’ll set our commitment ‘voluntarily’.
• LMDG wants new climate change agreement to be on above theme.
• Obviously developed (rich) countries are against this LMDG group. Rich nations argue “China and India are growing so fast that by 2020 your LMDG gang’s greenhouse gas emission will be lot higher than us! You can’t keep holding us responsible forever!”

Loss and damage

• One of the contentious issues in the COP19/Warsaw talks.
• Extreme events because of climate change= typhoons, floods, drought etc.
• Loss
• Permanent. e.g.  loss include loss of life, culture, livelihood, ecosystems, or territory.
• Can be economic or non-economic (e.g loss of entire culture/tribal religion in a low lying island)
• Damage
• Repairable. e.g. deforestation and temperature rise.
• In short- the Poor countries want ca$h from rich countries because rich countries caused climate change and poor countries suffering extreme weather/disasters because of them.
• Demand grew because thousands died in Philippines by Typhoon Haiyan just as the COP-19 started.

But Developed countries donot want to admit any legal liability – after all, China and India are also rich (GDP wise), and emitting more greenhouse gas than many of the developed countries.

REDD+

• REDD+: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation PLUS.
• Under REDD+: ca$h comes from developed countries =>green climate fund=>developing countries=>national agencies.
• It is a result based understanding/framework. Meaning, Developing country will have to prove the ‘result’ they have fought deforestation without harming local communities or biological diversity. Only then, they’ll get the ca$h.
• REDD+ negotiations have been ongoing since 2005, finally @Warsaw talks 2013, the participating nations agreed for REDD+ mechanism.
• UK, Norway and USA have already allocated $US280 million to a World Bank-led fund operating REDD projects.

REDD vs REDD+

REDD	REDD+
Only UN	UN’s REDD PLUS following 1.    Forest Carbon Partnership Facility: which is  is a global partnership of governments, businesses, civil society, and Indigenous Peoples. 2.   World bank’s  Forest Investment Program (FIP)
Just deforestation	Deforestation PLUS following sustainable management of forests Increasing forest carbon stocks Forest conservation

CA$H

• In all climate change talks- everything boils down to one thing: ca$H.
• Earlier developed countries had promised to give $100 billion dollar fund for developing countries by the end of 2020.
• But developed countries did not elaborate how they’ll come up with so much cash.
• Poor countries wanted some cash in the meantime (2013-19): but this demand was rejected in Warsaw talk.

anyways, enough of the issues, let’s check India’s stand:

India’s stand @COP-19 Warsaw

We want CBDR

• As usual, India called for CBDR: Common but Differentiated Responsibility.
• We accept that UNFCCC Convention and the Kyoto Protocol are also applicable to all.
• but this Universality does not mean uniformity. We’re against any legally binding commitments.
• Developing countries should be provided the flexibility to choose their actions.
• Rich nations should not to treat global warming issues with a business perspective of providing markets to their MNCs.

We’re not irresponsible

India reiterated @Warsaw that we’re not as irresponsible / evasive as rich nations portray us.

Consider some of the steps we’ve taken to combat climate change:

NAPCC	We’ve already made National Action Plan on Climate Change. Under this NAPCC, we have launched eight missions in areas of energy efficiency, solar energy, sustainable habitat, water, forestry, sustaining the Himalayan ecosystem, agriculture and strategic knowledge for climate change. Our states have also formed their plans and missions.
SOLAR	We have set a target of generating 20,000 MW of solar power by2020Already achieved about 1200 mw presently.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY	We have also introduced an innovative trading mechanism(Namely PAT – Perform, Achieve and Trade)for energy efficiency. (more given in one of my economic survey articles)
COAL CESS	A National Clean energy Fund (NCEF) ca$h comes from cess on coal of (Rs. 50 per tonne) this ca$h is used for financing renewable energy and environment friendly projects.

1.   We’ve made “voluntary” commitment that we’ll reduce emissions intensity of our GDP by 20 to 25% by 2020 (compared with 2005 level.)

2.   We have also committed that our per capita emissions will not exceed those of the developed countries in future also.

3.   We’re large country with a very small carbon footprint. our per capita emission is only 1.7 tonnes per annum, despite our heavy dependence oil import, we’re committed to follow the path of sustainable development.

India’s stand on Agriculture vs climate change

• India is against any mitigation mechanism to reduce emission from agriculture.
• for example, if UNFCC gangmember comes up with some idea that all nations should stop paying urea subsidies or cheap electricity to their farmers or stop paying grants to slaughter houses etc=>

then India will oppose such ‘mitigation’ mechanism for agriculture

• Because Majority of Indian junta depends on agriculture- poverty, food security angles (and ofcourse vote bank)
• So, Instead of mitigation, India advocates ‘adaptation’ mechanisms to reduce emission from agriculture e.g. organic farming, watershed, sustainable development etc. but that too without any legally binding commitments or targets.
• Same stand by China and some African countries.

India’s stand on Ca$h 4 climate change

India maintained that:

1.   Simply creating the institutional arrangements like Green Climate Fund does not help because they don’t have much ca$h.

2.   COP-19 conference needs to comeup with a clear roadmap on provision of finance for 2013-15, 2015-2017 and then up to 2020.

3.   Public finance should be the primary source of fund for climate finance. (US wants majority of ca$h should come from private companies, MNCs etc.)

India’s stand on HFC

• Montreal Protocol (1987)= to phase out ozone depleting substances – chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) , hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)  etc.
• They were used as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, solvents, AC in building and vehicles, and fire retardants.
• everyone including India banned those ozone depleting substances.
• but then refrigeration/AC industries shifted to using Hydrofluorocarbons  (HFCs) because
• HFCs are cheap
• HFCs are technically not an ozone depleting substance. Hence not covered under Montreal protocol

However they’re still potent greenhouse gases, with a warming effect much higher than carbon dioxide.

USA	India
wants HFC matter to be covered under Montreal protocol that way everyone, including India-China will have to ban HFCs.	wants HFC matter be kept under UNFCCC+Kyoto- then it’ll be mandatory only for the developed (rich) countries to phase out HFC gases. And India/China won’t have legally binding responsibility=>their local industry will be saved.

India reiterated this HFC stand during COP-19 Warsaw talks.

India’s stand on Technology transfer

• UNFCC wants developed countries to give (secret james bond) technology to developing countries – so they can combat climate change. But America is now reluctant. Instead of giving technology- USA wants to just promote investment in third world.
• In that respect, Indian wanted that Green Climate fund (GCF) should give special funding to transfer IPR protected technology from rich to developing countries.
• Because without ca$h and technology transfer, developing countries cannot carry out Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions NAMAs.

India’s stand on Misc. issues

• we support the demand of poor countries for “Loss and damage”
• We’re dismayed to see some rich countries (Japan, Canada and Australia) have rolled back from their earlier commitments about reducing Greenhouse gas emission.

Warsaw outcomes:

List not exhaustive

2015 Deal	In December 2015, we’ll hold a summit in Paris to outline what to do after 2020 (i.e. when Kyoto mechanism expires) but before this Paris summit, all countries must announce their plans before end of 1st quarter of 2015 about how they’ll curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emission beyond 2020 such national plans will be called “intended nationally determined contributions”. (Observe it doesn’t contain the word “commitment”- because India-China opposed that term)
Loss And Damage	agreement called the “Warsaw international mechanism for loss and damage (IMLD)”. As per this agreement, disaster victims in developing country will receive aid from the developed countries. BUT it will not be linked with any liability /commitment. will also provide expertise and aid, to help developing nations cope with extreme events related to climate change. 2016: we’ll review the exact form of this mechanism.
Cash	Merely urged developed nations to set “increasing levels” of aid to poor countries. but didn’t set any targets for 2013-19.
CDM	@countries that donot have legally binding emission targets.we’ll encourage them to use carbon credits under CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM (CDM)In 2014, we’ll hold a special technical meeting to iron out the details.
deforestation	adopted REDD+ to combat deforestation.

Limitations/Criticism of Warsaw Talks/COP-19

1.   They contemplated over the post-2020 scenario but did not outline any near term actions (2013-19) to combat climate change.

2.   No mechanism on how $100 billion will come in 2020

3.   No special funding to poor countries for 2013-19 period.

4.   It’s all a useless exercise as long as the world’s prominent emitters India and China receive special treatment. Both act as a ‘firewall’ between rich and poor countries, refuse any legally binding commitments.

5.   More than 800 NGOs staged a walkout from the Warsaw talks because developed countries are making no firm commitments to combat climate change, and the corporate interests/lobbying are taking over the environmental interest.

6.   Japan’s “Gaddari” to UNFCC:

o    Earlier Japan had promised we’ll cut our emission by 25% (from 1990 levels)

o    But during this summit, Japan announced, “not possible!, we’ll infact increase our emission by ~3% compared to 1990 level”

o    Similarly, Canada and Australia also scaled down their targets.

7.   S.Africa’s “Gaddari” to BASIC:

o    Earlier S.Africa followed BASIC stand = We don’t want legally binding commitments to reduce Greenhouse gas emission

o    But recently S.Africa wrote an official letter to UNFCC that new climate change treaty should impose legally binding commitments.

8.   Russia’s “anger”

o    that UNFCC’s conferences are failing to be impartial- Not taking decisions based on consensus.

o    Instead a few vocal members tend to overshadow the proceedings.

9.   India’s “dissatisfaction” that

o    Rich nations are treating global warming issues with a “business perspective of providing markets to domestic companies”.

o    How rich nations — including Japan, Canada and Australia — to scale down ambition and lowering of targets of emissions.

o    How Green Climate fund is useless without any coffers.

10.               Mere Lip service to issues related to black carbon, agricultural methane, energy efficient buildings-equipment etc.