The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
I find this guy really suspicious. Almost everything he tries to push through is very much against the national interest. Either he's clueless or on the payroll of some foreign organization - CIA or one of their NGOs.
Why should India have any less right to per capita emissions than any other country. If anything India should have more rights since other countries are rich while India is poor.
Chandrashekhar Dasgupta, the seniormost Indian negotiator and member of the PM's council on climate change told TOI: ``I am deeply concerned that the per capita equity approach, which provides the foundation for India's position on climate change negotiations, is being questioned at the level of minister of state (Jairam Ramesh).''
The disquiet over Saran's sudden exit is echoed by some sources in government who aver that the PM wanted to retain Saran and was quite willing to elevate him to MoS rank. But the former foreign secretary was clearly facing difficult odds as his approach was being challenged by Ramesh who was seen to be increasingly driving climate change policy.
Saran's exit is being seen as heralding a swift change in India's stance on climate change. A pointer to this is seen in Ramesh's decision to commission Arvind Subramanian, an economist working with the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington-based think tank, to undertake a study to define equity in the context of climate change
I find this guy really suspicious. Almost everything he tries to push through is very much against the national interest. Either he's clueless or on the payroll of some foreign organization - CIA or one of their NGOs.
Why should India have any less right to per capita emissions than any other country. If anything India should have more rights since other countries are rich while India is poor.
He has the devious demeanor of a snake oil salesman and most of what he peddles is actually snake oil. He is not only acting against us but actively for someone else inimical to us.
Pity we have to have him in such an important portfolio.
Jairam suggests new climate team, drops critics from list
The guy is a nut.
He needs to be dropped himself before he does some serious irreversible damage to India's foreign policy. I can't believe he's still running around creating this havoc of trying to side line India's most important climate change (hoax) negotiators - Chandrashekhar Dasgupta & Shyam Saran.
If he isn't on the payroll of some foreign intelligence organization, I'd be shocked.
Jairam suggests new climate team, drops critics from list
The guy is a nut. If he isn't on the payroll of some foreign intelligence organization, I'd be shocked.
No wonder Jairam Ramesh got many fans among gora's and gori's. But Jairam Ramesh is only following what his master's mnnmohan singh and montek singh wants him to do.
In the internal struggle over the nation’s climate policy, India’s charismatic Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has triumphed and is pushing his country toward low-carbon policies both at home and internationally.
by isabel hilton
Not to worry guys, as the saying "goras propose, SDREs dispose" goes, all this climate change cacophony will taper off in a few years. I am not saying global warming is a hoax or anything, but cerTAIN lobbies in the west went on a binge and now after the recent scandals, there is a course correction. Just get this. If you consider republcians or conservatives whatever you want to call them including the foul-mouthed tea part Nazis as roughly 50% of US population: these folks believe the climate change is a hoax. Then there are another 20% or so who are die hard environmentalits simply because it is cool. The rest can be swayed on way or another depending upon how strong the evidence is. My point being that eventually, these pushes and pulls in US body politic will result in climate change being relegated to a medium to low priority item.
Now just as Yoga, which was invented by India's Hindu spiritual masters 1000s of years ago and yet was shunned by India's elites as RSS's "rope tricks", but is now popular because sexy white white women practice it; likewise this Jayaram and Pachuri get bhaav in India becasue climate change is cool in the west and Al Gore said so, but once it tapers off in US, people in India will also calm down.
But I will watch for grand "bi-partisan" appraoch in western countries, where they continue on the status quo, but both left and right collude to extract the maximum juice out of soft pygmies like India; especially with "willing to walk the extra mile with terrorists" kind of leaders we have.
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India has agreed to formally associate itself with the climate accord struck in Copenhagen last year, one of the last major emitters to do so, the environment minister said in a statement on Tuesday.
"After careful consideration, India has agreed to such a listing," Jairam Ramesh told parliament, referring to India's decision to formally join the more than 100 countries that have choosen to associate themselves with the non-binding Accord.
"We believe that our decision to be listed reflects the role India played in giving shape to the Copenhagen Accord. This will strengthen our negotiating position on climate change."
India's decision leaves China, the world's top greenhouse gas emitter, as the only nation among the "BASIC" group of big developing countries to hold off from associating with the political agreement.
The step is likely to be a small boost for the troubled Accord, which many greens say was a bare-minimum outcome from a summit originally intended to agree on the shape of a broader, tougher legally binding pact to fight climate change.
...
Not a bad address at all. As I was mentining above, in the pompous liberal Vs conserrvative football game in US, the grand bi-partisan compromise would be dumping on IPCC and Rajendara Pachuri. There is no way US can deliver on enviroment in today's political climate. Virtually the entire American population who label themselves as conservative or republican, or even those in the center, roughly 80%+ believe global warming is hoax; a socialist conspiracy to undermine American way of life. The only thing both liberals and conservatives will agree on is that countries like India are polluters and must be checked.
Previous "studies on the effects of climate change in Bangladesh, including those quoted by the IPCC, did not consider the role of sediment in the growth and adjustment process of the country?s coast and rivers to the sea level rise," he told AFP.
Even if sea levels rise a maximum one metre in line with the IPCC's 2007 predictions, the new study indicates most of Bangladesh's coastline will remain intact, said Sarker.
"Based on the findings of the study, it appears that most of Bangladesh?s coastline, notably the Meghna estuary, which is one of the largest in the world, would rise at the same pace as the sea level growth," he said.
A University of Turku Department of Physics study shows that carbon dioxide has a significantly smaller impact on global warming than previously thought. Its results are based on spectrum analyses. According to research led by Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide accounts for only 5-10 per cent of the observed warming on Earth . "The climate is warming, yes, but not because of greenhouse gases," says Kauppinen.
According to him, projections made the UN climate panel, the International Panel on Climate Change, constitute a class-size error. The IPPC's calculated value is more than ten times larger than our calculated results, Kauppinen says. He intends to publish his results in the June issue of the magazine Nature.
The UN Climate Panel claims that global warming is almost entirely the result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions. [Unintelligible: Kauppinen, climate kestääkin much higher emissions than the IPCC reports have been made to understand.]
"I think it is such a blatant falsification," Kauppinen says.
These environmental groups, while spanning quite a large spectrum, tend to demonstrate an affinity with the pro-rural socialist left. The report describes climate change as not just a threat but also an "opportunity" to re-think the entire global system. It challenges western notions of development and growth and, most starkly, concludes that "mere reform within the current global economic system will be insufficient" to tackle poverty in a carbon constrained future. Indeed, members of these groups often seem to embrace rural village life as representing a pre-industrial idyll which should be preserved.
Such romantic ideology therefore seeks to largely maintain the status quo – where the African poor are kept "traditional" and "indigenous". It's hard to disagree with Lord May, former president of the Royal Society in his observation that "much of the green movement isn't a green movement at all, it's political".
With poverty redefined in terms of the environment and infused with pro-rural socialism, large-scale projects to industrialise or modernise are not the priority – indeed, western-style development and modernisation are seen as part of the problem. Instead there is a self-limiting bottom-up approach which subsidises underdevelopment not as a transitionary phase but as an end goal.
Now Der Spigel blames India and China for the failed Copenhagen summit.
There is a video of the secret recordings during the actual negotiations.
It seems they expect Europeans will come up with a draft and everyone will accept it. They are surprised when India and China don't. Imagine the frustration of these powers when Obama negotiated with CIBSA without the Europeans and got an agreement.
Btw, both India and China are not represented by their PMs while the Europeans and the US are. From the voice, I am guessing Jairam Ramesh might have been in the meeting.
How China and India Sabotaged the UN Climate Summit
What really went on at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen? Secret recordings obtained by SPIEGEL reveal how China and India prevented an agreement on tackling climate change at the crucial meeting. The powerless Europeans were forced to look on as the agreement failed.
At some point his patience was at an end, as depleted as the oxygen in the small conference room. He could no longer keep still, not even for a second.
The words suddenly burst out of French President Nicolas Sarkozy: "I say this with all due respect and in all friendship." Everyone in the room, which included two dozen heads of state, knew that he meant precisely the opposite of what he was saying. "With all due respect to China," the French president continued, speaking in French.
As if viewed through a magnifying glass, the contours of a new political world order become visible, one shaped by the new self-confidence of the Asians and the powerlessness of the West.
Guys, read the whole thing, especially the clarification at the end. Sweet. I'm quite certain the wording of the clarification originated outside the German chancellery. Read it carefully and you will know why.
abhishek_sharma wrote:India bailed out China from US-EU ambush at Copenhagen: Ramesh
the guy is blowing hot air. China does not need India to speak for it.
As soon as they develop their economy, they will demand a shift to this environmental BS to close the gates on any other developing country (like India).
Guys, read the whole thing, especially the clarification at the end. Sweet. I'm quite certain the wording of the clarification originated outside the German chancellery. Read it carefully and you will know why.
I read it, and still don't get it. So can anyone please tell us(BRFite Trainees) from where exactly this clarification came from ?
When the Indian leader absolutely refused to accept any concrete targets in the Copenhagen Protocol, Merkel dropped the diplomatic etiquette. "But then you do not want legally binding!" she yelled at the leader of a nation with over a billion people. Singh literally shouted back: "That's not fair!" His Chinese colleague, Deputy Foreign Minister He Yafei, added calmly and in polished English: "The current formulation would not be agreed."
“There is a large security establishment which is uncomfortable even with the Copenhagen spirit,” he told Indian journalists. “They keep asking me ‘Why are you collaborating with China on climate change?' After all, China is the world's largest emitter, with 23 per cent of the world's emissions, and we [account for] less than 5 per cent. They are asking, why should we collaborate with these guys?”
The Minister, however, suggested there was a “strategic” interest for India in taking forward climate cooperation with China.
He pointed to greater co-operation from China in sharing information on dam projects on the Brahmaputra, which had triggered concerns in India. The muted response from the Chinese government to the reported telecom ban also hinted at a better political atmosphere, he noted.
“The Prime Minister is totally gung-ho on [the Copenhagen spirit],” Mr. Ramesh said. “There is no doubt on it ... The NSA [National Security Adviser Shiv Shankar Menon] is fully backing it. The MEA is backing it. The people with the questions are the Home Ministry and the security establishment.”
Anmol, the words "low-ranking" used in the clarification suggests very strongly that the text of the clarification or parts of it came from the Indian embassy or other competent authority.
When the Indian leader absolutely refused to accept any concrete targets in the Copenhagen Protocol, Merkel dropped the diplomatic etiquette. "But then you do not want legally binding!" she yelled at the leader of a nation with over a billion people. Singh literally shouted back: "That's not fair!" His Chinese colleague, Deputy Foreign Minister He Yafei, added calmly and in polished English: "The current formulation would not be agreed."
I've sent them a stiff letter pointing out the error of portraying Prime Minister Singh in such a ludicrous light, and further pointing out their own apologetic note correcting this error on another part of their site. Let's see if they publish it.
JE Menon wrote:Anmol, the words "low-ranking" used in the clarification suggests very strongly that the text of the clarification or parts of it came from the Indian embassy or other competent authority.
JE Menon Saar Ji, thanks for helping me figure that out.
JE Menon wrote:I've sent them a stiff letter pointing out the error of portraying Prime Minister Singh in such a ludicrous light, and further pointing out their own apologetic note correcting this error on another part of their site. Let's see if they publish it.
Sir did you mentioned the racist tone in the following line :-
The blue turban of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was bobbing over the tops of a few hastily assembled potted plants.
They can describe him how they want. I don't mind if they call him a short dark idiot who can barely speak, and looks like a cartoon character. I'm not sure why you do, unless you attach a certain weight to their perception of you or yours.
The statement above that is a falsehood at the least, and perhaps even a deliberate falsehood. That is not factually correct, and it must be corrected. IMHO, of course.
JE Menon wrote:I'm not sure why you do, unless you attach a certain weight to their perception of you or yours.
Because he is our PM, though I agree with you that we shouldn't care what they think of us.
But why shouldn't we confront them with such insulting remarks they make, after all these guys leave no opportunity to rant on against us about societal discrimination in India.
>>But why shouldn't we confront them with such insulting remarks they make,
That's the point. Why are you insulted? Do their remarks have any special quality that it is "insulting"? Would they, for instance, feel the same way if an Indian magazine said Merkel was a fat old cow who can barely manage to smile properly because of huge unresolved/unresolveable personal psychological issues? And confront them and say what? "Don't make such insulting remarks"? Why do you want to give them so much power over you that some words from them ruffle you this way? You really want to get back? Then ignore it and go about your business with calm ruthlessnes.
>>after all these guys leave no opportunity to rant on against us about societal discrimination in India.
The same argument as above but in different words. OK so? Let them rant. The only issue is if they actually try to do something about it. Then we'll deal with that. Words or attitudes are irrelevant. Can we profit? is there an opportunity in their conditioned sense of superiority? Can we profit from that? That's what we should be looking at. It is in such fundamental misperceptions and self-imposed weaknesses that the greatest strategic advantages may lie.
So the last thing I'm worried about is how some German magazine would describe our prime minister in less than dignified manner. In fact, if it was up to me, I would spend some money to encourage such trends.
India's annual greenhouse gas emissions increased by nearly 60% between 1994 and 2007, a government study says.
The government says that emissions grew from 1.2bn tonnes in 1994 to 1.9bn tonnes in 2007, confirming India as one of the world's biggest emitters. India argues its per capita emissions are far lower than that of most industrialised nations. The jump is attributed to the growth of industries such as cement production, electricity and transport. Over the last 15 years India's economy has developed at breakneck pace. Correspondents say that developing nations such as India and China are under pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But at climate change talks in Copenhagen in December, India did not sign up to binding targets. Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh maintains that India's emissions are not comparable with those of the US and China. "The emissions of the United States and China are almost four times that of India in 2007," he told the AFP news agency
Jairam has created problems for powerful western interests by proposing India-China cooperation on the global warming fraud, and also by creating obstacles for introduction of GM frankenfoods.
The talk is that the Congress will not renew his Rajya Sabha membership.
The uncertainty over his status indicates the minister's letter to Sonia explaining his remarks in China has not convinced her. The Congress chief is understood to be bothered about the minister's conduct and this has led to the view that the ides of June might prove decisive in Ramesh's career.
Pranav wrote:Jairam has created problems for powerful western interests by proposing India-China cooperation on the global warming fraud, and also by creating obstacles for introduction of GM frankenfoods.
The talk is that the Congress will not renew his Rajya Sabha membership.
The uncertainty over his status indicates the minister's letter to Sonia explaining his remarks in China has not convinced her. The Congress chief is understood to be bothered about the minister's conduct and this has led to the view that the ides of June might prove decisive in Ramesh's career.
Raghuram Rajan, honorary economic advisor to the Prime Minister, today said India should not follow the US “blindly” on environment.
“Environment protection is important, but the question is whether you can stretch it beyond a point. At this stage of its development, India needs factories as well,” he said at a session on ‘How will India grow faster than China?”
Referring to Rajan’s concerns on pushing the environment agenda too far, Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia said opinions like these are welcome as India is seeing the early stages of debate on sustainability issues. On one side are non-government organisations (NGOs) who think environment protection is a costless exercise, and on the other is the opinion whether India is being over-protective and pushing the environment agenda too far. “You can expect transparent policies after deliberations,” he said.
