S-e-S Redux: Copenhagen?

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 04 Dec 2009 06:31

Emissions Cuts Would Cost India Dearly

The poor can't afford a big tax on energy usage, or a return to the License Raj of times past.

By SHIKHA DALMIA

In the pre-iTunes, pre-MTV age, there was usually a multiyear lag before hit songs in the West reached India. Now India is experiencing a similar time-lag on global warming. Just when fresh doubts about the issue are emerging in the West, India is flirting with the idea of hopping on the global-warming bandwagon at the Copenhagen climate-change summit next week.

This is in large part a misguided attempt to bolster India's political standing in the world. In an October letter to the prime minister conveniently leaked to the press, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh expressed concern that India's intransigence on the issue was making it a pariah among developed countries, jeopardizing its bid for permanent membership at the United Nations Security Council. He counseled that India delink itself from the Group of 77 developing nations resisting forced emission cuts without compensation, and instead make common cause with the Group of 20 rich countries pushing for climate action.

Mr. Ramesh's letter is a significant change of tune, given he made headlines this summer when he bluntly told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that India was simply in no position to accept binding emissions cuts. It is widely regarded as a trial balloon by the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and has triggered a maelstrom of protest in parliament, forcing Mr. Ramesh to pledge not to accept legally binding emissions cuts. But the government is nevertheless trying to change India's current domestic global-warming policy more dramatically than it is letting on to better align it with global demands.

The current policy, called Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions, in some ways is a declaration of India's independence on climate change. It essentially tells the world that India will undertake mitigation efforts if and when it is in its self-interest. The proposed new policy, dubbed Nationally Accountable Mitigation Outcomes, is something completely different. It would commit India to developing a mitigation plan right away. The plan would be enforced by domestic law but Mr. Ramesh—tellingly—wants to submit the emissions reports generated for international scrutiny every two years. This could well become a prelude to India eventually joining a global emissions regime.

Even worse, the new regime would unleash Byzantine new regulations on the country, from new energy efficiency standards in building codes to new fuel economy standards for vehicles. India would have to obtain 20% of its energy from renewable sources—wind, solar and small hydroelectric power—compared to 8% now. Given that these sources are typically far more expensive than fossil fuels, this would mean putting Indians, 40% of whom don't even have access to electricity, on an even stricter energy diet. The increased expense will put homes, air conditioning and cars out of reach of more Indians—all of which will make them, especially the poor, less able to withstand floods, heat waves and other dire effects of global warming should they ever materialize.

The resulting emission cuts won't even make a dent in global temperatures. India's per capita energy consumption is 15 times less than America's and half of China's—the two biggest polluters. To be sure, President Obama is poised to pledge to cut U.S. carbon emissions 80% below 2005 by 2050 at Copenhagen. But it's an empty promise because there is little to zero chance that he will be able to get Congress to go along. China too announced plans—modest by all accounts—to curb its emissions. So India will certainly face pressure at the conference to act, despite the fact that bigger polluters won't.

But as a developing country, India can least afford to give up its right to consume as much energy as is necessary to deliver all Indians a living standard comparable to the one that rich countries take for granted. There is every reason to believe that the new License Raj will damage India's economy every bit as much as the old one in the preliberalization days, when India's growth rate remained stuck at around 2%. This would be unfortunate at any time, but especially now, when the West itself is in the middle of a huge rethinking on this issue.

Front and center is the ClimateGate scandal that's erupting in Britain. Leaked emails out of the climate research center of Britain's University of East Anglia, unveiled last week, suggest scientists manipulated data, destroyed inconvenient evidence and tried to suppress opposing views. The scandal is prompting calls for a full-blown government inquiry into the science of global warming in both Britain and America. Cap-and-trade regimes in Washington and Canberra have stalled, and no one expects a climate deal of any substance at next week's Copenhagen meeting.

Meanwhile, global-warming fatigue is setting in everywhere. An October poll by Pew Center Research found that only 57% of Americans think there is solid evidence that the earth is getting warmer, down from 71% in April 2008. Only 36% now believe that the warming is caused by humans, compared to 47% in April 2008. Nor is America unique. The number of people rating climate change as the major issue they worry about has dropped to fourth place behind global economic stability in the last year, according to the HSBC Climate Confidence Monitor, a polling operation established by the bank and leading environmental outfits.

In the long run, India will gain more international respect if it remains focused on growing its economy instead of reshackling its people under a new, green License Raj. That's the real climate-change calculation Mr. Singh should be worrying about.

Ms. Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation and a Forbes columnist.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 06 Dec 2009 02:40

PM to Attend Copenhagen Summit

It appears there has been some arm twisting by BHO for MMS to attend, or they may have agreed to meet at Copenhagen when MMS was in the US. Somehow I get the feeling if the CTBT and NPT were drafted today and up for signature, the INC might sign off on it to get Unkil's approval or in its good graces.

Remember any treaty in the US has to be ratified in the US Senate and India should wait until Jan. 2011 after the mid-term US election. A few more Senator Inhofes elected should take care of the matter.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 06 Dec 2009 07:52

Guys:

Here is the major surrender that you have missed, from the recent MMS visit to DC:

NEW DELHI: India’s move to push for a new line on climate negotiations by announcing carbon emission cuts hit a major air pocket with key negotiator Chandrashekhar Dasgupta deciding not to leave for Copenhagen as scheduled on Monday. He will stay back for more “discussions” within the government.

Sources said there were several meetings through Saturday with negotiators like Dasgupta understood to be deeply unhappy with the position on India accepting a 20-25% reduction in emission intensity voiced by minister of state for environment Jairam Ramesh in Parliament.

What has also come as a red rag is a White House statement which was seen as an unsubtle indication that India acted in concert with the US. “Following bilaterals and since US announced an emissions reduction target that reflects progress being made in Congress towards comprehensive energy legislation, China and India have for the first time set targets to reduce their carbon intensity,” it said.

Time for a brand-new Ro-Dho-Dhaga?

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 06 Dec 2009 08:34

enqyoob wrote:Guys:

Here is the major surrender that you have missed, from the recent MMS visit to DC:

NEW DELHI: India’s move to push for a new line on climate negotiations by announcing carbon emission cuts hit a major air pocket with key negotiator Chandrashekhar Dasgupta deciding not to leave for Copenhagen as scheduled on Monday. He will stay back for more “discussions” within the government.

Sources said there were several meetings through Saturday with negotiators like Dasgupta understood to be deeply unhappy with the position on India accepting a 20-25% reduction in emission intensity voiced by minister of state for environment Jairam Ramesh in Parliament.

What has also come as a red rag is a White House statement which was seen as an unsubtle indication that India acted in concert with the US. “Following bilaterals and since US announced an emissions reduction target that reflects progress being made in Congress towards comprehensive energy legislation, China and India have for the first time set targets to reduce their carbon intensity,” it said.
Time for a brand-new Ro-Dho-Dhaga?

I did see this and a PTI article said the 25% carbon intensity reduction is legally non-binding.
Also see:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125984877391574527.html

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 06 Dec 2009 09:19

Mort:

Is the Negotiator unhappy because India has agreed to a 25% cut or because India won't agree to a BINDING 25% cut?

It does seem like the Indian position is completely vague (probably so is China's and the US is completely non-committal): once you say you are going to implement a cut, isn't there going to be immense pressure to make that cut?

vina · Post by **vina** » 06 Dec 2009 09:39

This Copenhagen thingy is again on of those "fundamental events that changed the course of world history" .. Stuff like the capture of Constantinople by Ottaman Turks, thereby rupturing the land link between east and west , leading to the age of discovery , Columbus , Vasco Da Gama and the new continents and the way history changed fundamentally.

Something analogous happened when Karl Benz put a gasoline engine on a 4 wheeler. Deserts and desolate places which were firmly the 6th century for most of their existence (those societies are still in the 6th century mentally, while they may live in airconditioned houses and drive around in cars and have the trappings of a 21st century existence), were tranfsormed becuase the worthless gunk that seeped out of cracks in the soil and that buried a few hundered feet below in places where they pitched their tents became literally black gold.

Militant wahabbi terrorist version of Islam that now menaces the world is a direct result of that incongruity. Now if the world can decarbonize and get away from fossil fuel, the black gold will go back to becoming useless black gunk. Those states will economically move back to the 6th century, along with the state fo the societies where they are in now. To move forward, the people there have to move socially to the 21st century , if they want to do so economically as well. Social and economic progress will be in lock step. This fluke, an unitended consequence of Herr Benz's experiment surely, of racing forward economically into 21st century with a 6th century society will be broken.

The entire world will be the better off for that. And the most important benefeciaries would be people of "black gold" regions themseleves, who live under an oppressive tyranny , both religious and political.

This decarbon thing can be a big opportunity. India will be going into it with the same advantages/disadvantages as everyone else. Prove it India. Go out and out innovate and out invent every one else in the world in getting a subsitute for oil. Do that , and you will literally rule the world.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Dec 2009 10:12

N^3, The Tech forum has thread on the subject: India and the Global Warming Debate

BTW Mort Walker is right. Its non binding cuts of 20-25%. Any move to binding will lead to walk out.
So no need for rhona dhona.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 06 Dec 2009 10:16

BTW Mort Walker is right. Its non binding cuts of 20-25%. Any move to binding will lead to walk out. So no need for rhona dhona.

Correct. IN the US, even Drudge highlighted Jairam Ramesh's crystal clear statement, repeatedly aired on all our national tv news channels, that "India will not agree to any legally binding restrictions at Copenhagen", period.

As for rona-dhona, it has its time, place and purpose. Nothing yet to warrant dejection on the climate talks front from Dilli's side, IMHO.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 06 Dec 2009 11:32

Chandrashekhar Dasgupta is/was the negotiator for the GoI at Copenhagen and Jairam Ramesh is the Minister of State for Forests and Environment. It appears Dasgupta is unhappy with Ramesh's commitment in parliament of 20-25% reduction in carbon intensity.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 06 Dec 2009 15:18

It does not matter if the emission cuts are binding or voluntary.India's holier than thou 'voluntary' commitments are always more stringent than binding commitments. Ahem ... India's moratorium on nuclear testing was also voluntary commitment which became binding commitment later.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 06 Dec 2009 15:25

Ominous signs that the MMS-Jairam Ramesh duo is upto no good:

Two negotiators pull out of India's Copenhagen delegation
New Delhi, Dec 6 (PTI)

Just two days before Copenhagen climate summit, two key Indian negotiators have pulled out of the delegation expressing reservations to certain announcements made by Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh in the Lok Sabha regarding India's position on the issue.

Former IFS officer Chandrashekhar Dasgupta and ex-Environment Secretary Pradipto Dasgupta who did not join the delegation met Ramesh today and discussed in length on the questions regarding issues such as country's basic position on per capita emission principles, transfer of technology, verification and domestically financed programmes.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/397 ... hagen.html

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 06 Dec 2009 17:41

N^3, The Tech forum has thread on the subject: India and the Global Warming Debate

ramana, I am quite aware of the debate over Global Warming, thank you very much. If you read the article I posted, you will see why I posted it under the US-India thread instead.

The news report is that Minister Jairam Ramesh's statement somehow ties the Negotiator's hands and he delayed his departure for further consultations with the Govt, indicating disagreement or surprise or both.

Then it is related to a Foggy Bottom statement rah-rahing about how India has agreed to something.

Both seem related to whatever MMS and BO discussed, and pressure due to China's patently insincere statement, given the timing.

So my question remains: what is the source of sudden unhappiness of the Negotiator? Obviously, if he is put in the position of doing a CTBT-style walkout, making India the Bad Guy, that is poor planning by GOI. This is such a slam-dunk argument - the Annex 1 Countries of Kyoto are still the villains, and they are allowing Australia, with its huge carbon footprint, to increase emissions, while bullying India. The US Senate has not ratified Kyoto and has no plans to even discuss Copenhagen. Is this GOI now kow-towing to US pressure?

You don't think this is a more serious issue than whether MMS told the Pakis to "raise Balochistan all u want" (and we see where that has got the Pakis called congenital liars by even the US, and nothing more)? The ro-dho on that is STILL going on, IIRC....

BO's co-party flunky Al Gore is going around in his private jet, claiming that Global Warming is because of poor Indians burning kerosene in their stoves. In this context,a letter published in the Denver Post would be interest here

Posted November 28, 2009, 5:03 pm
Global warming alarmists just looking for profit
By DP Opinion

Re: “Hopes dashed on climate change,” Nov. 22 Perspective cover.

Global warming alarmists cannot be trusted as the grim scenarios they paint are reminiscent of the Jimmy Carter-era predictions of an oncoming ice age: As soot from stoves in India and industrial smoke blocked sunlight, icebergs in shipping lanes would prevent trade, crops would fail everywhere, hurricanes would lash more often and … monsoon rains would fall off into the sea. If India bought stoves from the World Bank and American taxpayers funded new boondoggles, the cooling could be stopped.

Al Gore’s recent attack on Indians who use kerosene stoves is in poor taste. His private plane uses more fuel in 500 miles than 1,000 poor families would use in three years. By opposing a treaty on climate, India has saved everyone from the schemes of unscrupulous politicians who seek to become billionaires by hoarding up carbon credits and forcing businesses to buy them.

Arvind Kumar, Houston, Texas

This letter was published in the Nov. 29 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

India's position on Global Warming has been consistent. The issue here is US pressure, with the US very obviously the villain of the whole piece, because there is very little being done by way of regulation in the US to reduce carbon footprint. It's mostly hot air. Now at the last minute, GOI seems to be pulling the rug from under its own negotiator, and I think the US-India pressure role here should be discussed under US-India relations. Thanks.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Dec 2009 19:20

indeed. smacks of the bureaucracy rebelling against yet one more sellout engineered behind closed doors.

HT

Two key negotiators pull out of India's Copenhagen delegation

Just two days before Copenhagen climate summit, two key Indian negotiators have pulled out of the delegation expressing reservations to certain announcements made by Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh in the Lok Sabha regarding India's position on the issue.

Former IFS officer Chandrashekhar Dasgupta and ex-Environment Secretary Pradipto Dasgupta who did not join the delegation met Ramesh on Sunday and discussed in length on the questions regarding issues such as country's basic position on per capita emission principles, transfer of technology, verification and domestically financed programmes.

Sources told PTI that the negotiators also wanted to be know if the negotiations at the Copenhagen will be based on per capita emissions as stated by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and the general question of making unreciprocated concessions.

Singh has pushed for a legally binding instrument based on core principles of the UNFCCC and the 2007 Bali Action Plan seeking principles of equity.

Other negotiators has already left for Copenhagen last evening to participate in the talks to chalk out a new climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012.

A section of the negotiators were unhappy after Ramesh announced voluntary carbon intensity reduction to the tune of 20-25 per cent by 2020 in Parliament on Thursday.

The negotiating team comprising Shyam Saran, Prime Ministers' Special Envoy on climate change, Ajai Mathur, head of the Bureau of Energy Efficiency, Vijai Sharma, Environment Secretary has left for Copenhagen.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Dec 2009 20:57

I merged the relevant posts from Indo-US thread. Please post away here.

negi · Post by **negi** » 06 Dec 2009 21:11

Before I wear my EB chaddi , I have a simple pooch are promised emissions cuts 'verifiable' ?
And how do these cuts account for increasing population , increase in number of vehicles and infra ?

Nothing will come out of it I say please include me in this committee , its been long since I had a quality 'samosa' and cardamom tea.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 06 Dec 2009 21:16

Ramana,

You missed one of my posts on P.53 of the India-US thread when I first started talking about it before N^3.

Basically, don't sign anything until Jan. 2011. Treaties in the US have to be ratified in the US Senate and elections will come Nov. 2010 and a new Senate session in Jan. 2011. By then more opposition members will be elected who will scuttle BHO's climate initiatives like Kyoto.

S.Gautam · Post by **S.Gautam** » 06 Dec 2009 21:37

Mort Walker wrote:Ramana,

You missed one of my posts on P.53 of the India-US thread when I first started talking about it before N^3.

Basically, don't sign anything until Jan. 2011. Treaties in the US have to be ratified in the US Senate and elections will come Nov. 2010 and a new Senate session in Jan. 2011. By then more opposition members will be elected who will scuttle BHO's climate initiatives like Kyoto.

How many votes does it take for treaty ratification in the U.S. Senate? Can it be filibustered like new bills?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 06 Dec 2009 21:52

MMS comes across as a weak willed from his demeanor when he's interacting with people.
This mild mannered man would have been profiled by the psychologists, and a suitable approach to mold him would have been developed by the intel agencies of various countries.

Ombaba has personally invited MMS to Copenhagen, initially MMS refused, but agreed to persistent invitations.

The western nations have one last piece of tech that they'd want to sell and make profit out of. Clean environment friendly tech. The moment the world is brought into a binding resolution to make emission cuts and adhere to certain new standards, the western companies expect to make a windfall that will be unprecedented.

MMS has already announced that India will agree to cut emissions by 25%, but everything will be voluntary and non binding. I guess previous delegations from India obfuscated issues to some extent and gave out the notion that they will come back after consultations. Now with the PM himself in attendance, this won't fly.

All the right noises being made:
1. A world free of N weapons: Check
2. Ending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan : Check
3. Solid move on climate change by bringing in India, China and Brazil into the fold: check.

The whole world's problems just got solved.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 06 Dec 2009 21:56

I don't know about SES redux, but from all the moral pontification, this is surely Carter redux.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 07 Dec 2009 02:56

From Chindu
Danish move will be disastrous for India

NEW DELHI: The draft proposal prepared by the host nation Denmark for the climate change summit starting on Monday removes the distinction between the developed and the developing countries and will be disastrous for India and other developing countries.

Developing countries have maintained that given the fact that emissions from industrialising developed nations over the last century have been the primary cause of global warming, they should shoulder greater responsibility for carbon cuts.

nithish · Post by **nithish** » 07 Dec 2009 03:58

seems Dasgupta is going to Copenhagen:

A senior Indian negotiator today said he had concerns that Delhi had been offering “unilateral” concessions in climate change negotiations without obtaining reciprocity, but added that he would join the Copenhagen talks after receiving assurances from environment minister Jairam Ramesh.

“My concern is that we have been offering unilateral concessions without obtaining any reciprocity,” said Chandrasekhar Dasgupta, a former ambassador.

He said Ramesh’s recent statements seemed to “water down” the Prime Minister’s “per capita approach, the position on technology transfer… and our rejection of international verification of review of our domestically funded actions.

“On the basis of certain assurances offered by him (Ramesh), I now plan to fly to Copenhagen in the next few days to assist our delegation.”

edit: both negotiators are going:
seems Ramesh has found his limits

With a 'rebellion' by its Copenhagen negotiators rendering the government vulnerable to attack from the domestic constituency, environment minister Jairam Ramesh on Sunday was forced to step in to douse the fire with a promise that there would be no change in India’s red marks at the climate change talks.

Two key Indian negotiators, Chandrasekhar Dasgupta and Pradipto Ghosh, had raised the banner of revolt against the government’s ‘shift’ in the negotiation position, prompting the government to convene a meeting with them on Sunday morning.
------
The minister also assured that both, Mr Dasgupta and Mr Ghosh, were on board. Stating that all outstanding issues have been resolved, Mr Ramesh said: “Mr Ghosh is scheduled to leave on Tuesday and Mr Dasgupta will leave on Wednesday. Our negotiating team, headed by Shyam Saran, is already in Copenhagen.”
------
Elucidating on the apprehensions that led him to delay his departure, Mr Dasgupta said his main concern was that “we have been offering unilateral concessions without obtaining any reciprocity”.

He added, “My other concern is over elements of the interview (by Mr Ramesh in a Delhi newspaper) which seem to water down the prime minister’s per capita approach, Mr Singh’s position on technology transfer and IPR, and our rejection of international verification, or review, of our domestically-funded mitigation
actions”. Referring to the verification of domestically-funded actions, Mr Dasgupta said the minister had reiterated in Parliament that this was “a non-negotiable element”.

Of particular concern was the doubt over the official position on international verification of domestically-funded actions. On its importance, Mr Dasgupta said: “Unlike many other international agreements, the climate change convention doesn’t require reviews or any other type of consultations for domestic actions of developing countries.”

S.Gautam · Post by **S.Gautam** » 07 Dec 2009 04:27

Cross posting from the global warming thread for its sheer hilarity. It shows just how incompetent out government and the IPCC is. This is the sort of stuff we based our negotiating position on. Enjoy:

The BBC now has a more detailed story on the Himalayan glaciers. The 2035 doomsday melting date for the Himalayas... was actually 2350. I kid you not. No, really:
Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'

First, what the IPCC said in its 2007 report:

"Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2035," the report said.

The actual 1996 source used by the IPCC? Here, no typos:

"The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates - its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350," Mr Kotlyakov's report said.

Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and "misread 2350 as 2035".

Other than that they sourced some article in a popular science magazine which said 40 years.

"Astonishing" is a massive understatement. The world's largest glaciers outside the poles... and the most authortiative climate report in the world was off by an order of magnitude. I almost suspect it was intentional for political purposes. How can they be this incompetent?

Our glorious government's response:

When asked how this "error" could have happened, RK Pachauri, the Indian scientist who heads the IPCC, said: "I don't have anything to add on glaciers."

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 07 Dec 2009 04:31

Some technical information: India did not announce a cut in emissions, or a pledge to that effect. What was stated was a pledge to reduce the rate of growth of emissions by 20-25% compared to their rate of growth in 2005. Here's some data on the subject:
Highest rate of CO2 emissions growth since 1990
Between 1990 and 2005, India's emissions grew by 106%, or 5% per year. Between 2000 and 2005, it grew by 3.7% per year, and since then, by 7.25% per year. I don't have annual growth rate figures, but considering the inflexion point in GDP growth since ~2003-04, this period accounts for a major increase in Indian carbon emissions, with 2004-07 annualized growth probably in excess of 10% . Indian pledges, if executed in their entirety, would result in targeting emissions levels marginally lower than the present rate of growth.

Note that India just announced it is investing Rs.74000cr ($16 billion) in upgrading coal-fired plants for greater energy efficiency and lower emissions. This entails signifiant economic opportunities for companies supplying the necessary components.

I see two parts to the emissions debate:
* Pledges towards emissions cuts or intensity cuts, either binding or non-binding. Our current pledge constitutes a non-binding pledge towards an intensity cut, i.e. the least stringent case. The Chinese too offered the same, but an intensity cut of 40-45%, while Obama plans what appears to be a non-binding pledge towards an emissions cut, which is more far-reaching. I support a non-binding pledge, but not either a binding one or the imposition of any carbon trading regime.
* The economic opportunity arising out of supporting the efficient energy economy. While it has costs in terms of reallocating resources that might be spent on capacity expansion, it also has opportunities in terms of increasing existing capacity and helping us develop manufacturing ability to create products for the domestic and export market.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 07 Dec 2009 04:37

Jairam Ramesh is not particularly consistent when it comes to the environment.
On the one hand they cleared Bt Brinjal against the advice of Indian experts

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 216523.cms

and here he goes for drastic cuts again it appears against the advice of experts.

OR Maybe he just goes for what benefits international corporations

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 07 Dec 2009 05:41

I think this will push India to invest tremendously into renewable energy. It will help India a lot in long run (15 years onwards); when our dependence on Saudi and Middle eastern oil will start decreasing.

This external unbalancing force will upset those whose interests are now aligned with established trade system (oil, coal, gas, nuke); however, it will also cause India to take efforts, and achieve progress on sustainable, environment friendly and dharmic terms (like our ancestors did). Slight upsetting of this established equilibrium of vested trade interests is essential in India.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 07 Dec 2009 05:56

Isn't there a push for developing Hydrogen as the fuel of the future? Where does India stand in terms of research?
Weren't the Tatas talking about research in this area?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 07 Dec 2009 07:02

Thanks, ramana!

Here is why the Jairam Ramesh statement is such a disaster:

The Oiropeans are the ones orchestrating this Global Warming thing. It is their scam to raise the costs of imports to Oirope from America and Asia, and in turn, sell snake-oil gadgetry and useless hot air "carbon credits" to the natives in Africa and Asia. This is why US businesses dissed Kyoto. The US would like to get ahead in the technology race before signing on to any emissions quotas.

Wish I had time - or I could attach a PPT presentation on the Web from Africa - THEIR viewpoint on all these things is far more skeptical than the Indian one.

Basically, there is a 1000:1 or greater disparity between the Carbon Footprint of the US or Australian (much worse than US) and that of the Indian. As long as this is the case, the Oiropeans and the BOs have absolutely no right on their side.

OK, enter India. As of July or so, (when did HC visit?) India had won a very important deal. The Developed Nations would PAY for India to invest very heavily in solar energy. A truly massive investment, that would significantly reduce CO2 emissions. Solar, especially solar PV, is EXTREMELY expensive per unit power installed. Something like $ 4 to $8 per watt of capacity (1 watt of "capacity" does not produce 1 watt all the time because the sun don't shine all the time). So most of the world (incl. me) is waiting for SomeOne Else to do the massive investment at the high prices, and set the industry volume really rolling so that the price will come steeply down and THEN I can buy.

Well... India agreed to be the SomeOne Else. The Indian plan was so large that over time, about half of the solar PV would be bought at mass market prices, hopefully down to $1 per watt. If the production rate reached such a low mass-market price, then the sales of solar PV around the world would zoom, and there would be a huge payoff to the world in renewable energy and reduced CO2.

BUT.. ONLY BECAUSE THE WEST WOULD PAY. This is the central negotiating quid pro quo that existed UNTIL Jairam Ramesh opened his hot air aperture.

So why would the West pay for India to build solar capacity? Aha! The magic of Carbon Credits. The West, incl. the US, would win Carbon Credits for the Indian Projects as part of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol. Even the Himachal electric railway is under the CDM, because it is "certified" (yes, there is a CErtification Process, it has to be stamped by the Inspecteurs sitting in Le Chateau in Geneva by the lakeside).

So the massive Indian investment was the way that BO and Japan and others were going to keep on polluting, because their sins would be washed away by the Carbon Credits of the CDM project, of building solar capacity in India. For India, this was an OK deal, as it would also have kick-started solar PV production in India, essentially killed since Keltron quit making thick, expensive silicon wafer solar cells in the 1990s. It would have brought power to many off-grid places. And it would be done at someone else's cost.

What would the West gain? Well.. they would bring India into the quota countries' list, and therefore, Indian exports to Oirope and US would now cost more because India would be buying Carbon Credits as well, trying to meet the Quotas, I suppose.

Maybe BO fancied that with all those solar projects underway, India would not be so keen to build nuke plants or have money to import nuke fuel, thereby putting the nuke deal on ice.

But for India, getting all that $$$$$$ depended on holding on to the negotiating position: No $$$$$? No CO2 reduction.

Now Jairam Ramesh has done it - blown away India's negotiating capital by announcing a unilateral target that INDIA WILL ACHIEVE - as opposed to WEST WILL PAY FOR. Hence the angst, nay horror, among the negotiators. He's really blown it, IMO. Unless GOI issues a Categorical Terminological Clarificationical Obfuscation.

OTOH, BO and His Creditor General Li of Beijing have agreed that China will merely TALK of reducing CO2. BOTH US and PRC have agreed that they will simply let Copenhagen float by, and TALK of targets a year from now.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 07 Dec 2009 08:18

The Copenhagen Summit is not the end-all for the Climate agreements. It is but another Bali-like meeting. It is going to take a few more meetings and alot of informal discussions among the top culprits of the developed nations with the BRIC. If the ultimate goal is to restrict the global rise in temperature to only 2° C by c. 2050 compared to circa 1850 levels, that is going to take a lot more measurements of emissions etc by all countries and modalities and common approaches. All countries are therefore going to Copenhagen with tough stances and Indian political class must keep this in mind. While we do not want to appear as spoilsports, we must have a negotiating strategy where we are tantalizing but yet secure our interests.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 07 Dec 2009 08:47

Sri Sri Jairam Ramesh seems to have backtracked and downhill skiied enough along with huffed and puffed hot air from different apertures to confuse more than clarify India's real position (if there is one, or many).

Hopefully the stage has been set for an escalatory, obfuscatory retreat to what the principled Indian position used to be. Hopefully.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 07 Dec 2009 09:07

Why can't Jairam Ramesh fire his babus? Are the babus in this case are too powerful? Who is authoritative here and it is another low in the scheme of things. Jairam Ramesh needs to be fired for his several contradicting and inconsistent statements since the government formation.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 07 Dec 2009 09:46

I get the feeling that this GoI that we have in place, the babus are running the country through MMS.
MMS being a babu himself understands what the other babus think. Most netas come and go, but the babus remain there and form the bedrock of how India behaves and acts.

There is no powerful glamorous PM/ lead political figure who would not let these little acrimonies surface.

negi · Post by **negi** » 07 Dec 2009 10:06

What happened to the per capita green house emissions per country argument ?
Even a cursory glance at wiki indicates that an average person in both Unkil and PRC 'phoonks' far more green house gases than any Indian .

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Dec 2009 10:27

What: Copenhagen Summit is a gathering of governments to come to agreement on reducing carbon emissions.

Known: There is a general trend that the climate is getting warmer based on observed temperature data over several decades.

Presumed: Its presumed that this climate warming is due to the increased industrialization and generation of carbon bye-products as a result of fuel consumption.

Unknown: What exactly is the mechanism of global warming and how much is the contribution of industrial nations and developing nations - should the norms be on nation basis or individual per captia basis?

Impact: Curbs on carbon emissions will slow down the developing economies by adding costs on their fuel resources. Industrial nations will recover slowly from the economic collapse.

Why Now: US Administration is favorable to an international agreement to bolster its green credentials.

Likeness: Earlier Koyoto Protocol was boycotted by US administration as they did not like the curbs on their carbon emissions.

Difference: Unlike Koyoto accord the current US Administration is favorable to an international agreement to bolster its green credentials.

POV of developing countries: While its a good thing to cut down on pollution, the technology for clean burning fossil fuels is not easily available from the advanced countries as it gives them a competetive advantage (Ricardos' theory)

What else?

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 07 Dec 2009 10:30

India's pledge is a reduction in carbon intensity by 20-25% which is non-binding. This does not translate in to a 20-25% cut in emissions. Right now the BHO administration has the MMS govt. over a barrel, as the best way to reduce GHG for India is a massive investment in nuclear power, but first it must agree to all of the unpleasant conditions imposed on it.

BJP cuts deep into govt's climate plan
Posted in full since link changes:

New Delhi [^], Dec 6(ANI): Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Sunday criticized Union Government’s decision to cut its carbon intensity in the range of 20 and 25 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels and accused it of changing the baseline before the Copenhagen talks.

Addressing the media in the national [^] capital, Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley said: “Today, we forego the per capita principle that we have followed, that I have as much a right in carbon space as a developed country’s citizen has. Instead, they (developed countries) are not announcing their cuts, we are unilaterally announcing our cuts without being sure who is going to meet the cost of this reduction.”

“And, this whole policy that he (Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh) has announced particularly in his interview to the Times of India (a daily newspaper), that we are even flexible and are likely to adopt independent inspection and verification of our unsupported domestic actions. This is wholly unacceptable,” he added.

Jaitley further highlighted that the country is unsatisfied with the decision, and said: “The whole country is upset, our negotiators are sulking, the only one happy about this seems to be the White House, and the White House has now made a statement that they are very happy that India has come on board. It is clear that even though we stand for an Indo-US friendship, it can’t be one-sided that we succumb to every pressure.” (ANI)

S. Gautam,

All treaties in the US must be ratified by a 2/3 majority in the US Senate. Right now its 60/40, with the Vice President casting the tie-breaker vote, and very likely 10-12 Republican senators will go along with BHO. The American political system works best with checks and balances. Having the same party in control of the executive and legislative branches of government is not only bad for the US, but dangerous for the rest of the world as we saw with the Iraq war. If India, China and Brazil can delay any Copenhagen treaty to early 2011 would be best. It is in India's interest that the US remain economically weak with high unemployment so that on issues such as this, BHO's party looses a filibuster proof majority in the US Senate. Traditionally, the party of the president looses seats in the US Congress in the mid-term election and will happen this time as well, but how many seats are lost is the question. The last thing we want is the MMS & INC govt. scoring a self-goal.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 07 Dec 2009 10:42

Admittedly yes, Sri Jaitley's volley makes increasing sense. The more I read about Sri Ramesh's indecent haste to announce cuts and grand targets, and announce a bill in parliament to cement the same, the more I am unnerved only. What is the quid pro quo, one wonders.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 07 Dec 2009 10:43

Ramana,

Presumed: Its presumed that this climate warming is due to the increased industrialization and generation of carbon bye-products as a result of fuel consumption.

This is a very big assumption. As we saw with the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia, some researchers wanted to manipulate findings. Since these treaties have such a huge economic impact, it is very necessary to have an extremely intensive peer reviews of all findings and all data must be in the public domain regardless of which country it comes from. The last thing all of us want is a repeat of the South Korean cloning fraud in 2004-2005 by well published peer reviewed papers in the prestigious journal Science. Aside from pollution, global warming may not be anthropogenic and the concept of the runaway greenhouse effect as proposed by some scientists is nonsense. Further, we are in an inter-glacial period where the next ice age will be triggered due to orbital changes.

ppatil · Post by **ppatil** » 07 Dec 2009 11:09

Who Wants What in Copenhagen

India, which has long resisted the imposition of carbon-emission caps, says it is ready to cut emissions intensity 20% to 25% by 2020, but won't accept legally binding targets. It argues that it needs development and economic growth before it should consider fixed emission caps and that the developed world has a historic responsibility to take more restrictive measures because it caused decades of atmospheric damage. India also favors financing and technology transfer to boost green energy solutions

Why china is coming around?

What China dreads most is the end of Kyoto provisions that grant tradable credits for reducing emissions; China has been the top receiver for the credits, getting 59% of the total.

amit · Post by **amit** » 07 Dec 2009 14:39

ppatil wrote:Who Wants What in Copenhagen

Why china is coming around?
What China dreads most is the end of Kyoto provisions that grant tradable credits for reducing emissions; China has been the top receiver for the credits, getting 59% of the total.

IMO, China has done one of the best pieces of jugglery in this climate change business and I personally applaud them.

While the US made a grand show of a 17 per cent emission cut by 2020 over its levels in 2005, what it actually means in real terms is just a 4 per cent cut over the 1990s Kyoto Protocol level. And even that can be covered with offset credits as outlined in the Waxman-Markey bill (see Link). According to Kyoto, US was supposed to have achieved a 5.2 per cent cut over 1990s level by 2012.

China's response has been the 40-45 per cent energy intensity level cuts till 2020 which sounds equally impressive on paper. But it remains tied to the rate at which the Chinese GDP grows. If the economy, say grows at 7 per cent per annum then it's energy intensity would grow roughly at 50 per cent over 2005 levels. However, if the economy grows at 10 per cent then that emissions will grow exponentially - I've seen some calculations which talk of a 150 per cent growth over 2005 levels. And it needs to be remembered that China plans to growth at 10 per cent as long as it can.

So China's emission cuts will be function of its growth and not the other way around, that is growth being a function of its emission cuts.

IMO it's important to note that India's proposal is very similar to China's and so even though this thread has the imaginative name of S-e-S Redux: Copenhagen? I personally fail to understand the Rho-Dho and business as usual cries of "sell-out". I think Suraj's post above sums up the issues vis a vis the Indian announcement nicely.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 07 Dec 2009 15:12

Suraj wrote: The economic opportunity arising out of supporting the efficient energy economy. While it has costs in terms of reallocating resources that might be spent on capacity expansion, it also has opportunities in terms of increasing existing capacity and helping us develop manufacturing ability to create products for the domestic and export market.

I think that the upside is negligible and unlikely and the downside will have significant consequences.

amit · Post by **amit** » 07 Dec 2009 15:38

abhishek_sharma wrote:I think that the upside is negligible and unlikely and the downside will have significant consequences.

Abhishek,

It would further this discussion if you could kindly list some of the downsides, arising from the current Indian stand on a non binding carbon intensity reduction as opposed to a straight forward emission cut figure.

TIA