Climate change isn't news any more in India

Midnite Toker

Any hope that this week's climate change talks in New Delhi would produce a meaningful outcome has virtually disappeared.

Nobody expected universal agreement. But to say that the latest round of climate talks being held in New Delhi have gone badly would be something of an understatement.

Ministers from more than 170 countries are currently in India discussing a pressing international problem: what can be done to reduce global warming? The answer, it seems, is not much.

The summit - the latest in the United Nations climate change process - got off to a shaky start earlier this week when the Indian government excluded all reference to the Kyoto protocol from a draft declaration.

Delegates from the European Union expressed their disappointment, while Britain's environment minister, Margaret Beckett, said she was "slightly surprised" Kyoto had been dumped out of the draft.

It was not difficult to work out what had happened. The United States withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol - which calls on the developed world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions - earlier this year, when President George W Bush said the treaty was not in the US's economic interests. India regards the United States as its major ally.

The limp declaration, written by India's environment minister, T R Baalu, was clearly inspired by Washington, critics say. The draft made no mention of a future commitment to reduce pollution. Instead it stressed "adaptation" and sustainable development - shorthand for doing nothing about global warming other than to prepare for it. It was, in the words of one disgruntled European official,"crap".

On Wednesday the fading prospect of making meaningful progress on climate change more or less disappeared. India's elderly prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, addressing the conference, said that the developed world had no obligation to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. India could not afford to do anything about reducing them, and was, after all, only responsible for a fraction of global pollution, he argued.

"We do not believe that the ethos of democracy can support any norm other than equal per capita rights to global environmental resources," Mr Vajpayee said.

India's big task was to reduce poverty, he said. Since industrialised countries were responsible for most of the world's pollution, the onus fell on them to reduce emissions, he added.

His argument has a certain bleak logic to it: if the United States, the world's biggest polluter, is prepared to nothing about global warming why should a poor country like India put itself out?

Environment ministers from progressive countries like Britain and Canada have tried to sound upbeat in the wake of such unilateral declarations. But the suspicion is that the Kyoto Protocol - if not exactly dead - lies mortally wounded.

Mrs Beckett insisted earlier this week that the treaty could still make a difference, even without the United States. Other ministers expressed the hope that Mr Bush and Mr Vajpayee would eventually be won round to its virtues. This is a quixotic argument, and one suspects that even its advocates don't really believe it.

Environmental campaigners, meanwhile, have accused the United States of working behind the scenes to frustrate this week's talks.

"Why are the Americans here? It seems they are only here to sabotage, obstruct, weaken and delay proceedings," Steve Sawyer, of Greenpeace, said.

"They don't care about climate change, they don't care about the poor. who are the first and hardest hit; they only care about the bottom line of their fossil fuel pals like Exxon and Enron."

"Progress has been frustratingly slow on the detailed issues here in Delhi because of the usual sabotage from the usual suspects and a lack of political will from the rest, Sawyer added.

To reinforce their point, Greenpeace activists hung a banner from the Delhi hotel housing the US delegation. It read: "American climate criminals in town."

India's environment minister, meanwhile, is expected to come up with a new Delhi declaration, to be signed tomorrow, which makes glancing mention of the Kyoto protocol. But with the United States, Saudi Arabia and Australia refusing to ratify it, the declaration is virtually meaningless before the ink on it has dried.

Luke Harding, © The Guardian 31-10-02

__________________
travel tips, blog, downloads, panorama photos, online security, tokes:
the tokezone

Alan D

I try to be an optimist but this is depressing news. It's difficult to fault countries like India when those countries which could do something about their energy consumption do nothing. Not only do nothing but actually increase their consumption of fossil fuels.

As far as the USA is concerned, being the world's single largest consumer of fossil fuels, there are internal problems. The present administration is strongly connected with oil interests and I doubt if the American public would be happy with a rise in the price of gasoline or fuel conservation measures. They would probably react by dumping any government at the first opportunity.

In case you think I'm knocking USA only, I'm not. European countries, like the UK have an increasing number of vehicles, causing increasing congestion in towns and cities and even motorways. I am a part of this problem too as I own a car but for the most part it's only used a couple of times a week. My wife and son both cycle to work each day.

I don't know what the answers are but I'm pretty sure that nothing will be done until some of us are up to our necks in salt water. Of course, then it will be too late.

-m2-

I sure don't know the answer either, but the question of Canada ratifying Kyoto is currently a big issue here as PM Chretien has promised a vote in Parliament before the end of the year. Alberta, the primary oil and gas producing province, and Ontario, the most industrial, feel very threatened.

Makes you wonder what's up, however. Apart from a couple of cities, the air is pretty good in Canada -- same in US. Emission standards for cars and industry have made things much better over the past 20 yrs or so -- yet you go to a place like India, and the polution is *everywhere*. Pictures from China and other 3rd world countries look just as bad, yet there seems to be special loopholes for developing countries so they won't have to really address their own problems any time soon. Perhaps the overall pollutants a country produces are the global problem, but it looks kind of fishy. Countries with more modest populations and some intact forests seem to be able to achieve a balance of some kind -- at least for themselves. Slash and burn agriculture, low standard fuels (coal, petroleum products and wood-burning) along with inefficient engines and transport in overpopulated countries seem to be a huge problem and one that is not really being tackled very effectively (though I guess Delhi is attempting to do something about their pollution.)

I've read somewhere that around 1/4 of India's electricy is wasted/stolen -- the amazing photos we love to take of Indian electrical lines as a snare of wires leading to squatter shacks and other illegal, and dangerous looking hook-ups are evidence of that and I think it is a similar percent of water that goes missing in the distribution system just due to leaking mains and broken pipes. So right, while the annual energy consumption per person in India may be modest -- they sure seem to create one hell of a mess with what they *do* consume.

mike

Alan D

Here's the full text of Vajpayee's speech on climate change at the recent conference in Delhi.

http://pib.nic.in/archieve/lreleng/l...301020023.html

He argues that the developed nations have caused most of the pollution so far and that the developing nations are now entitled to catch up. His arguement is pretty persuasive and may now well be taken up by other developing countries. I can't help feeling that any concensus on global warming is now almost impossible.