During Nov 2013, Warsaw, Poland hosted:
|
COP19
|
|
|
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!”
- 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$h from rich countries because rich countries caused
climate change and poor countries suffering extreme weather/disasters
because of them.
- Demand grew
because thousands died in Philippines by Typhoon Haiyan just as the COP-19
started.
But
Developed countries donot want to admit any legal liability – after all, China
and India are also rich (GDP wise), and emitting more greenhouse gas than many
of the developed countries.
- REDD+: Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation PLUS.
- Under REDD+:
ca$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 $US280 million to a World Bank-led fund
operating REDD projects.
REDD vs REDD+
|
REDD
|
REDD+
|
|
Only UN
|
UN’s REDD PLUS following
1.
Forest Carbon Partnership Facility:
which is is a global partnership of governments, businesses, civil
society, and Indigenous Peoples.
2.
World bank’s Forest Investment
Program (FIP)
|
|
Just deforestation
|
Deforestation PLUS following
|
- In all climate
change talks- everything boils down to one thing: ca$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:
- 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.
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
|
|
|
SOLAR
|
We have set a target of generating 20,000
MW of solar power by2020Already achieved about 1200 mw presently.
|
|
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
|
(more given in one of my economic survey articles)
|
|
COAL CESS
|
|
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 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
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$h should come from private companies, MNCs
etc.)
- Montreal
Protocol (1987)= to phase out ozone depleting substances – chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs) , hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) etc.
- They were used
as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, solvents, AC in building and
vehicles, and fire retardants.
- everyone
including India banned those ozone depleting substances.
- but then
refrigeration/AC industries shifted to using Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs) because
- HFCs are cheap
- HFCs are
technically not an ozone depleting substance. Hence not covered under
Montreal protocol
However
they’re still potent greenhouse gases, with a warming effect much higher than
carbon dioxide.
|
USA
|
India
|
|
|
India
reiterated this HFC stand during COP-19 Warsaw talks.
- UNFCC wants
developed countries to give (secret james bond) technology to developing
countries – so they can combat climate change. But America is now
reluctant. Instead of giving technology- USA wants to just promote
investment in third world.
- In that respect,
Indian wanted that Green Climate fund (GCF) should give special funding to
transfer IPR protected technology from rich to developing countries.
- Because without
ca$h and technology transfer, developing countries cannot carry out
Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions NAMAs.
- 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.
List
not exhaustive
|
2015 Deal
|
|
|
Loss And Damage
|
|
|
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.
|
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment