Recalling #COP15, Copenhagen - What I wrote in 2009. Eco. Times 1-Dec-2009: India must accept binding commitments for deep emission cuts; bargain for economic opportunities that can reduce poverty and sustain economic growth.
#COP21 Paris. 2015:
I don't accept India's official interpretation of 'differentiated responsibilities' as one that must be unverifiable, non-binding, and totally voluntary. It cannot be one without accountability - towards either mitigation or poverty reduction or both. Countries like India and China are not justified in insisting on unverifiable commitments now when they are among the biggest polluters. The position adopted in 1992 when the aggregate CO2 contribution by countries like India was very low cannot be extended indefinitely. Official Indian position is one of giving a free run to Indian crony capitalists to pollute and plunder environment.
The using ‘right to pollute’ as a proxy for ‘right to development’ is dubious, fraudulent, and untenable. That path of development is not equivalent to clean (low carbon), equitable and sustainable growth. It doesn't make the government accountable in a measurable way for mitigation, risk reduction, and poverty alleviation. It is without any binding commitment to preferentially helping the poor in adapting to increasing uncertainties and large environmental changes. In short, I completely reject the official Indian position and that of many non-govt agencies converging with the official stand. Further, the stand of Indian mainstream left, sadly and despicably, converges completely with the right-wing government's stand, which in effect subsidizes the crony capital, and encourages plunder of environment under the fake slogan of the right to development.
#COP15, Copenhagen, 2009 Article in Eco. Times 1-Dec-2009
#COP21 Paris. 2015:
I don't accept India's official interpretation of 'differentiated responsibilities' as one that must be unverifiable, non-binding, and totally voluntary. It cannot be one without accountability - towards either mitigation or poverty reduction or both. Countries like India and China are not justified in insisting on unverifiable commitments now when they are among the biggest polluters. The position adopted in 1992 when the aggregate CO2 contribution by countries like India was very low cannot be extended indefinitely. Official Indian position is one of giving a free run to Indian crony capitalists to pollute and plunder environment.
The using ‘right to pollute’ as a proxy for ‘right to development’ is dubious, fraudulent, and untenable. That path of development is not equivalent to clean (low carbon), equitable and sustainable growth. It doesn't make the government accountable in a measurable way for mitigation, risk reduction, and poverty alleviation. It is without any binding commitment to preferentially helping the poor in adapting to increasing uncertainties and large environmental changes. In short, I completely reject the official Indian position and that of many non-govt agencies converging with the official stand. Further, the stand of Indian mainstream left, sadly and despicably, converges completely with the right-wing government's stand, which in effect subsidizes the crony capital, and encourages plunder of environment under the fake slogan of the right to development.
#COP15, Copenhagen, 2009 Article in Eco. Times 1-Dec-2009
Comments