Page 5 of 9

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 27 Jul 2009 12:17
by Neshant
As I suspected, France wants to use the global warming issue to push through its protectionist agenda. Its little more than an attempt to prevent the advancement of the developing world to keep people in poverty.

With the many incompetent blunders by the Indian government in negotiating and signing documents not in the national interests, I'm not hopeful of a positive outcome.

Germany calls carbon tariffs "eco-imperialism"

ARE, Sweden (Reuters) - Germany called a French idea to slap "carbon tariffs" on products from countries that are not trying to cut greenhouse gases a form of "eco-imperialism" and a direct violation of WTO rules.

The issue of greenhouse tariffs has met bitter opposition from developing countries such as China and India, who count on the developed world to buy their exports as they build their economies in the face of the worst financial crisis in decades.

Matthias Machnig, Germany's State Secretary for the Environment, told a news briefing on Friday that a French push for Europe to impose carbon tariffs on imports from countries that flout rules on carbon emissions would send the wrong signal to the international community.

"There are two problems -- the WTO (World Trade Organization), and the signal would be that this is a new form of eco-imperialism," Machnig said.

"We are closing our markets for their products, and I don't think this is a very helpful signal for the international negotiations."

European environment and energy ministers are meeting in Sweden to try to come up with a single vision of how the 27-member bloc will fight global warming, ahead of a major environment summit in Copenhagen.

The first phase of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on cutting greenhouse gas emissions is set to expire in 2012. Final negotiations on a successor climate change pact will take place in the Danish capital at the end of the year. ... RJ20090724

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 27 Jul 2009 12:19
by Neshant
over the past couple of years, the phrase "global warming" was quietly replaced with "climate change" and inserted into trade related negotiations. I suspect this was done in case data like what's below emerges and blows a hole in the global warming theory.

So what will be claimed now. Global cooling !?


3,000 Low Temp Records Set This July! :mrgreen: ... s_july.asp

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 15 Aug 2009 23:14
by Adrija
Anyone interested in climate change should read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton........

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 15 Aug 2009 23:24
by Yayavar
Neshant wrote:over the past couple of years, the phrase "global warming" was quietly replaced with "climate change" and inserted into trade related negotiations. I suspect this was done in case data like what's below emerges and blows a hole in the global warming theory.

So what will be claimed now. Global cooling !?


3,000 Low Temp Records Set This July! :mrgreen: ... s_july.asp

Neshant, does global warming imply everything must heat up all at once? can there be no weather related fluctuations? And by the way - US weather fluctuations do not constitute the world. In the last couple of weeks the North west US had record highs if that helps.

The ice-caps melting and reducing is a phenomena that has been observed for many years - a months fluctuations are not climate.

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 22 Aug 2009 20:56
by shravan
Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist
August 18, 7:39

In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.
The pdf file located at the link above from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.
The United States House of Representatives has passed a Carbon tax (Cap and Trade) as have other governments in Europe, based on these completely erroneous models.

There are only a couple of conclusions to be made of this. Either the world has been misled by scientists working for the UN and IPCC due to faulty science, or faulty science has been deliberately used in a global scheme to generate tax revenues for the Governments instituting Cap and Trade Taxation policies.
Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 24 Aug 2009 05:50
by Rkam
[url]Climate Change and India: Is There a Basis for U.S. Pressure?[/url]

Climate Change and India: Is There a Basis for U.S. Pressure?

Arvind Panagariya, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development

AUGUST 10, 2009 —
During her recent visit to India, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to prepare the ground for the major negotiation on carbon emissions in Copenhagen in December by calling upon India to join hands with the United States to "combat global warming." Recognizing that Clinton was indirectly calling for India to accept mitigation commitments at Copenhagen, India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh reacted swiftly and sharply stating that his country was "simply not in a position to take on legally binding emissions [reduction] targets.

Is India being self-righteous and risking its own interest, as the Financial Times and The New York Times claimed in the wake of the tough stance by Ramesh, or acting in self-interest while asserting its reasonable rights? A good case can be made in favor of the latter.

Let me make clear at the outset that the opposition to mitigation commitments at the aggregate level is not to be confused with opposition to all mitigation. If replacing regular light bulbs with "green" bulbs would lower carbon emissions while also bringing down the cost of lighting the house, the change is obviously welcome. Likewise, if clean energy sources are available at no extra economic cost over those that pollute, their use is to be encouraged.

Therefore, the issue subject to debate is whether mitigation at the aggregate level would best serve the interests of India. To answer, begin with a few relevant facts. Going by the most conservative estimates, 300 million Indians currently live in abject poverty. Forty percent or more of households in the country are without electricity—they literally lack an electricity connection. On a per-capita basis, India ranks 137th in carbon emissions. Even when compared to China, India's carbon emissions are approximately one-fifth in aggregate terms and one-fourth in per-capita terms.

Setting aside the equity issue for the moment, if India were to accept even modest mitigation commitments, it will have to seriously compromise its growth. Economic growth of 9% to 10%, necessary to bring electricity to all households and offer a modest living standard to all citizens in the next two to three decades, cannot be achieved without significant increase in aggregate emissions. One way to see this is to ask how much lower the emissions of China could be if it adopted overnight the most cost-effective clean technologies currently available. Even making the generous assumption of a 25% cut on this basis, the Chinese emissions would remain 3.5 times those of India. It is simply unrealistic to think that India can achieve the income standards China currently enjoys while holding its emissions to current levels.

What about the argument that India is highly vulnerable to the risks posed by global warming and therefore risks devastation unless it accepts mitigation commitments? Frankly, such argument borders on fear-mongering, while obfuscating the fact that mitigation advocated by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is entirely feasible without subjecting India to binding commitments for some decades to come. India accounts for just 4.4% of the current annual emissions. Given this tiny share and the vast existing stock of carbon from emissions in the last 100 years in the atmosphere, mitigation by India can add no more than a drop in the ocean.

Indeed, if we were to seek a solution to the emission problem based on maximizing any reasonable global-welfare objective, we would likely exempt India (and Africa, which also has a large poor population and accounts for a small part of annual global emissions) from mitigation obligation until it is able to provide a humane living standard to its citizens. It is astounding that liberals in the West entirely turn a blind eye to the poor in India when insisting on compulsory mitigation by the latter, some even going so far as to advocating import tariffs to enforce mitigation by it. Surely, rich nations can undertake to do just a bit more in the early decades to accommodate the poor, with today's poor nations joining the clean-up effort later.

The argument for mitigation commitments by India for some decades to come looks even weaker once we take into account the existing international agreements and equity. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to which 192 countries currently subscribe explicitly exempts the developing countries from mitigation commitments. Consistent with this provision, the Kyoto Protocol, negotiated under the auspices of the UNFCCC, set mitigation targets exclusively for developed countries. The insistence by the United States that the post-Kyoto agreement on mitigation, to be negotiated in Copenhagen in December, must subject India and China to binding commitments is in violation of the UNFCCC agreement.

As for equity, developed countries have emitted the bulk of the carbon in existence in atmosphere today. They accounted for more than 70% of the emissions between 1850 and 2000, with India's share being a paltry 2%. Even in terms of current emissions, Canada, the U.S., Europe, Eurasia and Japan together release more than 50% of the carbon into the atmosphere. Any principle of moral philosophy would require the developed countries to substantially cut their emissions before asking developing countries to commit to mitigation.

Indeed, developed countries have chosen to play strategically by framing the negotiation in terms of mitigation commitments rather than emission rights. Given their disproportionately large current emissions, even very substantial mitigation commitments leave them with disproportionately large future emission rights. They can claim the high moral ground for having made large cuts and yet walk away with the maximum rights to pollute in the future!

Finally, it should not go unrecorded that while the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress have moved climate change up on the U.S. national agenda, their efforts to date are scarcely laudable. Even ignoring the protectionist provisions for import tariffs and the decision to distribute 85% of pollution permits freely to the firms that successfully lobbied, the Waxman-Markey legislation—which still awaits approval by the Senate—requires emissions to drop to only 20% below the 2005 levels by 2020. Under the original Kyoto Protocol, which a prior Congress chose not ratify, the United States had agreed to bring the emission levels to 7% below their 1990 levels by 2012. Because the United States substantially expanded its emissions between 1990 and 2005, by shifting the base year to 2005, it has now set its 2020 target 12% above the 1990 emissions. This can hardly be hailed as "leadership" by a great nation, as much of the Western press has implicitly done by chastising India for standing up to U.S. pressure.

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 25 Aug 2009 16:11
by Adrija

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 28 Aug 2009 08:37
by Sanjay M
Sharon Begley
China and India Will Pay

Though others started global warming.
Published Aug 27, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Sep 7, 2009

my response:

The author sounds quite haughty and really quite full of herself. How is India cutting its measly 3% contribution to emissions going to put a dent in the 75% contribution to global warming from the developed world. Basically, the developed world including SUV-driving Americans are perfectly happy to cause natural disasters in other parts of the world through their frivolous activities. That's a far cry from the activities of those who are merely trying to achieve basic sustenance and putting food on the table. Americans would rather see others go without food than give up their smoggy SUVs.

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 28 Aug 2009 10:09
by Sanjay M
And despite her conclusions, this other article speaks to the contrary:

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 16 Sep 2009 17:57
by Sanjay M
World Bank Suddenly Clamouring for Climate Change Funds, Warns World Will End ... ate-change

Umm, I think that if these guys are suddenly screaming about climate change now, then it's a money grab.

What the hell were they doing 5 years ago?

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 24 Sep 2009 01:26
by Sanjay M
9 Thresholds Before Earth Becomes Inhospitable to Man ... 18,00.html

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 27 Sep 2009 11:20
by Sanjay M
G20 puts pressure on India to phase out fuel subsidies over mid-term

Ya see, when Jim Bob and Billy Joe need to drive their SUVs to get home early to fire up their hot tubs, then this doesn't "encourage wasteful consumption, reduce energy security, impede investment in clean energy and undermine efforts to deal with climate change"

But if poor Ranjini can't afford to heat milk for her baby, then she doesn't deserve any help because this might result in harm to the environment.

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 27 Sep 2009 11:42
by Sanjay M
Note that at no point are any of the developed countries willing to bring in the issue of nuclear power generation into the discussion. There are already non-fossil fuels available for power generation, by which I mean nuclear fuels. The fact that the developed world seeks to skew the debate away from access to nuclear sources of energy, shows that they only care about their needs.

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 28 Sep 2009 06:51
by Neshant
Isn't nuclear power one of the most expensive ways of generating power? US which is supposedly a leader in the field of nuclear energy has not built a single reactor in 25 years.

Although it differs on a country by country basis, I'm sure the cheapest form of power for India is large hydro-electric dams which in addition to being a power source has a lot of other advantages like flood control and irrigation. Maybe I'm conspiracy minded but I view moves to obstruct such dams as a foreign conspiracy to make India dependant importing far more expensive nuclear infrastructure.

The only real purpose for nuclear energy is to maintain a scientific base for it and to develop nukes. Sure we can build a few more for electricity to justify the cost of the former, but how cost efficient is it?

India is a vast country and can probably afford to diversify its energy source but the corner stone should remain hydroelectric, coal and natural gas.

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 10 Oct 2009 20:51
by ChandraS
Climate change? India must play it hard

A Rediff slideshow article by a non-Indian climate change researcher echoing India's arguments on climate change.

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 19 Oct 2009 03:52
by Pranav
Is the MMS-Jairam Ramesh team surreptitiously planning to sell out? All the more disgusting since this whole global warming business is essentially a charade based on fake science. ... 136979.cms

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 19 Oct 2009 05:23
by Neshant
Is the MMS-Jairam Ramesh team surreptitiously planning to sell out?

The guy's suggestions are truly insane.

I hope he knows what he's doing.

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 19 Oct 2009 09:41
by Singha
his letter was leaked by patriots somewhere in the system.

another name for his approach would be "gubo"

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 19 Oct 2009 10:08
by arun
Pranav wrote:Is the MMS-Jairam Ramesh team surreptitiously planning to sell out? All the more disgusting since this whole global warming business is essentially a charade based on fake science. ... 136979.cms

With an established track record of going wobbly at the knees such as the sell out at Sharm el Sheikh, the Congress party led UPA Government will need to be carefully watched.

In particular the temptation of a sellout in response to the flattery of the Obama administration bestowing the "honour" of the first “State visit” by the administration to our Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, could likely prove irresistible.

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 19 Oct 2009 11:21
by chetak
arun wrote:
Pranav wrote:Is the MMS-Jairam Ramesh team surreptitiously planning to sell out? All the more disgusting since this whole global warming business is essentially a charade based on fake science.

This smells badly and is also patently dishonest. ramesh is a house jholawala akin to a house nigger.

This is what happens when we have cowboys running the show. Quite a feat for our boy ramesh :rotfl:, simultaneously foaming at the mouth and bending over all oiled up and ready to tango.

Inconsistent policy from one meeting to the next meeting. Indicative of external pressures that is evident to all developed countries to treat India as a pushover.

There seems to be a lack of public discourse to formulate a credible policy on a subject that is likely to affect the aam jantha.

Expect similar " feats of diplomacy " in the WTO discussions as well as CTBT and NPT where we will become "deal makers" as well.

Wonder what sort of a deal the house jholawalla cut for himself?

Are we seeing a disastrous and modified "gujral" doctrine being reborn to haunt us again?

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 19 Oct 2009 11:25
by Pranav
Jairam Ramesh is a two-faced snake. He had made a big song and dance in front of Hillary Clinton which fooled us poor SDREs but this is what he was really upto.

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 19 Oct 2009 12:38
by chetak
Two faced snake?

Come on saar, you are being too polite onlee.

Is this slimy bottom feeder pitching for a nobel or Magsaysay? ... -wuss.html

Is Jairam Ramesh a Sell Out or a Wuss?
If India is indeed planning to make a radical shift in its Climate Change policy negotiations as reported in Times of India, it calls for some serious debate. Jairam Ramesh in a confidential (not anymore) letter to the Prime Minister has called for a changing our long standing policy positions and has basically asked for accepting every demand the US has made of India (and indeed China) without any commitment from the developed countries on financial help or technology transfer to developing and under-developed countries.

There are multiple reasons why the new policy and the reasons put forth for it leave a bad taste in the mouth. Before going in, let us see what is being proposed.

From Times of India:
Environment minister Jairam Ramesh, in a confidential letter to the PM, has suggested that India junk the Kyoto Protocol, delink itself from G77 -- the 131-member bloc of developing nations -- and take on greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments under a new deal without any counter guarantee of finances and technology.
The minister has justified the proposed shift of gears by repeating his argument that India need not be seen as a deal-breaker and should try to curb emissions in its own interest. He has also pointed to the advantages -- a permanent seat on the Security Council, for instance -- that it can hope to reap with a changed stance.
n his letter, Ramesh emphasizes his concern about India being seen as a bugbear for the developed countries in the climate negotiations. "India must listen more and speak less in negotiations" as its stance is "disfavoured by the developed countries, small island states and vulnerable countries. It takes away from India's aspirations for permanent membership of the Security Council."
ow Ramesh has said India should "not stick with G77 but be embedded in G20. We should be pragmatic and constructive, not argumentative and polemical." Interestingly, India had recently fought off immense pressure at the G20 talks to dilute its stand and give up its rights to financial compensation.
India, at present emits only 1.2 tonnes per capita of greenhouse gas emissions, as compared to 20 tonnes by the US. Acquiescence in any regime that does not differentiate between the super polluters like the US, on the one hand, and varying levels of developing countries on the other, would, lock the country into an arrangement where its growth options would be restricted.
In a note circulated within the government and to select Members of Parliament, it had said that mitigation action (as the Australia Proposal suggests) would lead to rise in the price of power and a drop in the production, impact the expansion of railways and adversely hit the prices of fertilizers in years to come. It would increase the cost of all goods, especially food items; the government assessed that it would increase unemployment especially in the rural agricultural sector. It had also warned that even if the country were to undertake such actions, it would have no impact on the costs of climate change adaptation that India would have to bear.

Now, is it me or is Jairam Ramesh's position looks like an absolute capitulation in the face of pressure from developed countries. After reading the entire article, which i suggest everyone to do, i couldn't find a single point that would seems to take India's self-interest in consideration.

* Is this going to help us grow faster? - NO
* Is this going to help us leap frog into newer technology, thus cutting down on emissions? - NO. The developed countries don't want to transfer technology to developing countries.
* Is this going to help the most vulnerable in our society or elsewhere across the third world? - NO. Infact, given the new tariffs and emission control regime, without financial assistance or technology transfer, is going to make life difficult for this group.

So, what are the reasons our Minister with all his wisdom propose we give into all these demands?

1) India is seen as obstructionist by the developed world.

Excuse me Minister, but who are you kidding. Didn't US refuse to sign Kyoto though it was the most polluting and the most technologically advanced country comparing itself to India and China. However sloppy the logic there was, one can see how well US fights to protect its self-interest. Maybe our minister should learn something from the developed countries that he so desperately wants to impress.

2) India might get a place in the Securiy Council.

This must be the joke of this year. First up, there is no way China or Pakistan or any number of other countries including Germany, Japan and Brazil for one reason or the other is going to let that happen anytime soon. Even if it is going to get a permanent slot in the Security council, it is going to be without a veto. Let us not kid ourselves. US is not going to let one more country to get a veto. So, instead of day dreaming of someday sitting in a table in an institution, which with each passing day is losing its relevance, let us focus on the issue at hand here and now. India's self-interest is paramount in our negotiations, not some decorative title that is bestowed. I don't know when we Indians stop running behind stupid titles that has some imagined prestige but chase real power, something the Chinese seem to be pretty adept in.

3) India should dissociate itself from G-77 and be part of G-20.

There is a very apt tamil saying which goes like this = "Arasana Nambhi Purushana vitta kathai". Roughly translated it means you give up your own kin trusting a stranger. Another dumb idea and reason from our minister. It is not like Climate Change is the only issue where India needs other nation's support. We have the CTBT, NPT, WTO talks where we don't want to be pushed to a corner. Moving to G20 line of reasoning atleast makes sense if we are going to gain something out of it. Instead, we want to ditch our friends for some pat in the back from the developed countries which won't think twice before ditching us in any forum.

It is times like these that we want a party at the centre that tempers and keeps the over-zealous ministers in check. Something the Left played for sometime. I hope the article in TOI elicits more debate and we follow policies that is in our self-interest than about some prestigious title.

As for Jairam Ramesh, is he a sellout or is he a wuss? he a sellout or is he a wuss?

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 19 Oct 2009 15:39
by Singha
a full investigation is needed as to what he stands to gain or what was promised him to gubo like this.

Rajmata can actually come out looking better if she hauls him over the coals and burnishes the INC pro-poor and left of center credentials.

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 20 Oct 2009 08:51
by Muppalla
Jairam Ramesh went overboard to avoid Kamalnath's fate. Kamalnath lost the commerce ministry to Anand Sharma (with South African wife) because he was too nationalistic. Now Jairam's letter leak has backfired and we have to see if he survuves.

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 20 Oct 2009 14:37
by Rahul Mehta
[quote="Pranav"]Is the MMS-Jairam Ramesh team surreptitiously planning to sell out?[/Qoote]


Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 20 Oct 2009 19:27
by muraliravi
I am surprised that there has not even been a single dharna on this issue even from the leftists. I mean this will kill our manufacturing industry once and for all. The way congress has killed it in maharashtra over the decades because of some gora dalals.

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 20 Oct 2009 19:30
by chetak
I think that uncle ramesh has been hung out to dry by his party.

Just saw him lose his cool on live TV when questioned about the climate change fiasco.

The GOI should bury this disloyal, shameless and spineless turncoat for good.

We can do without such scoundrels and their twenty pieces of silver.

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 20 Oct 2009 21:05
by chetak ... 67046.aspx

Slated at home, Jairam Ramesh is praised by US, Britain

Critics at home may rail at his reported move to soften India's stand on climate change, but the US and Britain have words of praise for Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh's attempts to position New Delhi as a "deal maker."

The efforts by Ramesh and the Prime Minister's Special Envoy Shyam Saran were noted by the heads of the British and US delegations Monday at the close of a two-day meeting of the Major Economies Forum (MEF) on Climate Change.

In India, Ramesh was criticised by the Bharatiya Janata Party for writing a letter to the prime minister suggesting a major shift in India's traditionally hardline position at global climate change talks.

"I can't comment on a letter that I have not seen," US Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern said in London.

"But I've been very favourably impressed by my interactions with the Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, and I've had very constructive dealings with Ambassador Shyam Saran.

"I think there's still some way to go, but I think the Indian government is trying to be more constructive. They are trying to see their way through for finding agreeable ways of dealing with core issues like transparency and accountability.

"I do commend them for making, from our point of view, some forward progress," Stern said at the closing press conference.

British Climate Change Minister Ed Miliband also wouldn't comment on the reported letter, but spoke highly of the efforts by Ramesh and Saran to push for a deal with developed countries.

"I think what we see from India is a clear sense that a deal and an agreement on the right terms is in India's interests and that India needs to engage in what Jairam Ramesh calls Per Capita Plus - so it has a per capita approach, but also needs to take domestic action," Miliband said.

"I think that is very welcome and I think India wants to be a deal maker, not a deal breaker. That's my clear sense from both Ambassador Saran and Jairam Ramesh," Miliband added.

The MEF, comprising 16 nations and the 27-state European Union, met in London for informal talks aimed at breaking a long-standing stalemate in global climate change talks.

Talks are deadlocked over US insistence that China, India and other major developing countries undertake binding commitments to slash their greenhouse gas emissions - a product of industrialisation - that cause climate change.

Developing countries argue that climate change has been caused by rich nation-emissions and that the US must first undertake cuts.

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 20 Oct 2009 23:28
by chetak
With friends like pinko millibund, you don't need enemies.

As per this bund, ramesh is an "incredibly visionary and imaginative person" :roll:

Drumroll and immediate UK citizenship. ... 63092.html

Eyes on India at London climate talks

By Dipankar De Sarkar London
Mon, 19 Oct 2009 at 13:32 IST
By Dipankar De Sarkar

London: Speculation surrounded India's position as representatives of the world's leading economies began a second day's meeting here Monday in a bid to break a logjam in global climate change talks.

The Major Economies Forum (MEF) met amid reports of a radical move by Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh to soften India's traditionally hardline position, suggesting New Delhi abandon its G-77 developing country allies in favour of the G20 group of industrialised nations.

The positions of India, China and the US top the agenda at the talks, which are aimed at breaking a stalemate in the runup to a crucial climate change summit in Copenhagen Dec 7-18. The Indian team is being led by the Prime Minister's Special Envoy on Climate Change Shyam Saran, who stuck to India's traditional position at the recent Bangkok meet to prepare for the summit.

Host Britain is keen to break the deadlock over US insistence that India and China undertake internationally-binding caps on their carbon emissions and an equally strong demand by developing countries that the US lead by example.

The suggestions by Jairam Ramesh, who was described by British Climate Change Minister Ed Miliband last week as an "incredibly visionary and imaginative person", may constitute a game-changing plan after years of fruitless talks.

But critics warned accepting binding cuts at this stage of industrial development may result in lowering India's economic growth rate, which in turn could damage efforts to cut poverty.

The MEF, which brings together 17 of the world's biggest carbon-emitting countries, was set to be told by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown Monday that effects of climate change had brought the world to the brink of "catastrophe".

"Leaders must engage directly to break the impasse. We cannot compromise with the Earth," Brown will tell the meeting, his office said.

"We cannot compromise with the catastrophe of unchecked climate change; so we must compromise with one another."

The MEF comprises Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, Britain, and United States, who together account for about 90 percent of global emissions of harmful greenhouse gases.

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 23 Oct 2009 04:58
by putnanja
PM clears air, says West must pay for green tech

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Thursday cleared India's position on climate change, stating that "equating GHG emissions across on a per capita basis is the only just and fair basis for a long-term global arrangement on climate change which is truly equitable".
In a speech peppered with statements echoing India's position on key elements of the negotiations, Singh said, "We believe that continuation of the process of incentivizing the adoption of climate friendly technologies in developing countries in the second commitment period of Kyoto Protocol should be a priority concern."

He also lobbed the ball back in the industrialized countries' court, saying, "I have no doubt that if developed countries make a serious effort to bring their per capita emissions within tolerable levels, they will unleash large resources directed towards research. This will generate an upsurge of technology that will make it much easier for other countries to follow suit."

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 10 Nov 2009 22:38
by Pranav
Jairam Ramesh trying to make amends:

India 'arrogant' to deny global warming link to melting glaciers : ... e-glaciers

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 11 Nov 2009 09:42
by Pranav
Jairam Ramesh still upto his sneaky tricks -

Climate matters

Jairam Ramesh created a flutter with his controversial letter to the prime minister that reportedly proposed changes to India’s long-standing position on climate change. Now, it seems that Ramesh is keen on enlisting the support of all political outfits on this matter. He recently telephoned the Rajya Sabha AIADMK leader, D Maitreyan, to discuss the matter, but Maitreyan apparently retorted that the lady at Poes Gardens will only be interested in discussing changes in the political climate. Hearing this, the unflappable Ramesh came up with his own quirky response. He assured the leader that as of now, he was only expected to discuss “geographical climate change”. Matters related to changes in the political climate could only be discussed with Madam, added Ramesh. ... 711954.jsp

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 20 Nov 2009 21:42
by shravan
India tells West to stop eating beef

The environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, said if the world abandoned beef consumption, emissions would be dramatically reduced and global warming would slow down.

"The solution to cut emissions is to stop eating beef. It leads to emission of methane which is 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide," he said.

"The best thing for us, India, is we are not a beef-eating nation.

The United States, the world's largest emitter along with China, is also the world's greatest beef-eating nation and consumes 25 per cent more than Europe.

His comments follow a call last month by Lord Stern, the author of a British Government study on climate change, for people to give up eating meay to reduce emissions. "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases," said Lord Stern. "It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources. A vegetarian diet is better."

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 20 Nov 2009 22:50
by rgsrini
Stop Eating beef!!!

Absolutely brilliant I say!!! This is the most amazing counter attack I have seen coming out of India for a while in any sphere of life. Hopefully he keeps at it and talks about it in all the Climate discussions. We should rope in scientists to talk about it no-stop, create glitterring powepoint presentations with mind numbing details about the harmful effects of methane and how much of it is getting generated in the world because of their beef eating habit. His ministry should also produce a short film which follows the transformation of a cow to a beef patty (grazing in the green field, to a slaughter house to the grinding machine, to a burger to someone's mouth) all along narrating the harmful effects of methane caused by the beef. It should make reference to e-coli, mad cow disease and all the other ills of the society caused by this beef eating behaviour. He should send a copy of this to "billionare" AlGore, "arrogant" Pachouri, "Hot, Flat and crowded" Tom Friedman and all the heads of the state. This should be one of the things that the west should be made to give up, besides paying for our green technology.

Of all the arguments that India makes, this has the possibility of making the most impact as it affects the lifestyle of the west directly. The other thing that makes it brilliant is that it brackets China and the west as the culprits while keeping India on the right side.

"Jai Shri Ram" Ramesh.... Great going!!!

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 21 Nov 2009 01:44
by ss_roy
It seems that somebody hacked in University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, and copied thousands of e-mails incriminating scientists (fraud, data manipulation, peer review scams). I am not surprised, manmade global warming was always a fraud.
Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 21 Nov 2009 11:51
by Neshant
they are cooking the books allright.

climate change previously known as global warming is nothing more than a protectionist ploy.

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 21 Nov 2009 19:28
by Pranav
Jairam Ramesh continues his back-stabbing spree. Obviously MMS must be 400% behind him, with Sonia's support too.

Consternation over pre-Copenhagen statement of Jairam Ramesh : ... 951600.htm

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 22 Nov 2009 00:02
by shravan
ss_roy wrote:Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released

Becks (10:13:27) :
It is truly amazing how much the BBC and the MSM are ignoring this story. Just goes to show how much in bed they are with the IPCC and the US Govt..makes me sick. I have had Fox news on all morning and there hasn’t been one mention of the scandal brewing. If any of the US stations were to carry the story Fox news would be the one. Will be waiting patiently for an on air segment..I do think Hannity and Glenn Beck need to jump on this considering how large their audience is currently.


Any mention of this story in Indian Media ?

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 22 Nov 2009 03:21
by Jarita
Pranav wrote:Jairam Ramesh continues his back-stabbing spree. Obviously MMS must be 400% behind him, with Sonia's support too.

Consternation over pre-Copenhagen statement of Jairam Ramesh : ... 951600.htm

Ramesh also sold us out on GMO. He allowed BT Brinjal in despite overwhelming oppostion from Indian scientists. He is an all out badmash. Goes where the money and favors are, country be damned

Re: India and the Global Warming Debate

Posted: 22 Nov 2009 04:35
by ss_roy