India Seeks China’s Help to Fight International Climate Change Mafia
by Ramtanu Maitra on 13 Aug 2009 2 Comments

Indian Minister of State for Environment Jairam Ramesh said on July 31 in New Delhi that he was going to Beijing in the last week of August, to discuss the stand of developing countries on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). He was releasing a booklet that puts together the submissions India recently made to the negotiations, in the run-up to the week-long 192-nation climate summit in December in Copenhagen. “India considers China its most important ally in the Copenhagen negotiations,’’ he added.

The visit will follow the next round of negotiations - to start in Bonn on Aug. 10 - for a deal in Copenhagen. Ramesh said that he would also go to Brazil and South Africa, in an attempt to forge a common position of major developing countries.

It was evident from the outset that, like the proponents of the World Trade Organization’s diktats, the international “climate change” mafia is using the climate change platform to undermine the sovereign rights of nations, by imposing a global monitoring outfit that would not only oversee what these nations do contextually, but would handcuff their domestic political and social processes. More than 75% of world’s population lives in developing countries where such basic amenities as clean water, electrical power, basic health care, and universal education are not available to many. In other words, the global mafia is trying to put into law a hoax that will exacerbate poverty, create social chaos, and lead to deaths of millions in many developing nations.

It is understood in China and India, in particular, that application of advanced technology reduces pollution of many types. What the developing nations needed for decades, and particularly need now, is large-scale generation of electrical power, mostly based on nuclear fission. Large-scale infusion of clean nuclear power would not only meet the domestic commercial and industrial requirements, but it would help relieve the water scarcity problems in coastal areas.

Desalination of saline and brackish water, using the nuclear steam supply system, could meet the domestic commercial and industrial requirements of all coastal nations. High-density electrical power, which nuclear power plants supply, would allow electrification of railroads and thus speed up transportation of bulk materials and passengers. Electrical power also plays a major role in the present agricultural technologies, as it enables bulk production of basic fertilizers. In addition, the developing nations need high-yield seeds to enhance productivity. But that requires adequate water and electrical power can ensure that water supply.

While the nuclear goal is not immediately reachable, what these two nations can do - for themselves and all other developing countries - is to block the environmentalist genocide agenda, which includes both the pseudo-scientific hoax of “global warming” and opposition to nuclear power. According to the gaggle of international “climate change” hysterics, the success or failure of the summit depends heavily on China and India - the two most populous nations now in the process of developing their domestic economies and bringing minimum relief to hundreds of millions of people, stricken with poverty and living without access to basic physical infrastructures.

Fear of China and India Bolting 

But the fear of China and India saying “no” to the major items of the climate change agenda has energized the opponents to split the potential alliance between them. At the G8/G5 heads of state summits in L’Aquila, Italy, in July, pressure was exerted by the UK-US-led climate change gang on the heads of state of both India and China to play ball. However, the pressure failed to yield a consensus on climate change. The climate change gang made clear that they believe a breakthrough will be made before or during the crucial summit in Copenhagen.

During his flight back to India from L’Aquila, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told journalists: “There is a lot of pressure on India and China on the issue of climate change. We have to resist it. I have put India’s views on this before other countries.

“We recognize our responsibilities by way of mitigation and adaptation. I presented India’s climate action plan - national mission - and we are willing to do more if there is an arrangement to provide additional financial support as well as technology transfers from the developed to the developing countries, to ensure clean, sustainable development can really become effective instrument for strengthening strategies for climate change.”

Earlier, in L’Aquila, Manmohan Singh’s special envoy on climate change, Shyam Saran, told reporters that “there is an important political message from the G5 to the developed countries, that they have to commit to reducing emission targets by 2020.” The G5 - India, China, Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico - is suggesting that at least 1% of the GDP of developed countries should go towards checking alleged climate change.

While the Indian Prime Minister and his envoy were diplomatic in not wishing to get their opponents too angry, Minister of State for Environment Ramesh came out swinging when he told the visiting US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in mid-July during a conference on climate change in Gurgaon, near New Delhi, that “India won’t bend to demands from the Obama Administration or threats from the US Congress to adopt legally binding caps on its carbon emissions.”

“There is simply no case for the pressure’’ the US is exerting, considering that India produces among the lowest per-capita emissions in the world, Ramesh told Secretary Clinton. “As if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours,” Ramesh said, referring to a climate-change bill passed by the US House of Representatives on June 26, which imposes tariffs on exports from countries that refuse to adopt greenhouse gas controls by 2020. Any such US “legally binding” emissions targets won’t be acceptable for India, Ramesh added. “It’s going to be impossible to sell in our democratic system.”

Ramesh also told Clinton that India’s position on the climate talks has been mis-stated by some sections of the Western media: “We are not defensive, we are not obstructionist, and we want an international agreement in Copenhagen.” But India “simply is not in a position to take on legally binding emissions reductions targets.”

The Copenhagen Agenda 

According to Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UNFCCC, the four essential elements of an international agreement in Copenhagen are:

1] How much are industrialized countries willing to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases?

2] How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit the growth of their emissions?

3] How is the help needed by developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change going to be financed?

4] How is that money going to be managed?

Developing countries, including China and India, have made clear that it is the responsibility of wealthy industrialized nations, such as the UK and US, to set a clear example on cutting carbon emissions. In April, Secretary Hillary Clinton acknowledged the role the US had played in past climate emissions, at a gathering of officials from the world’s 17 largest economies.

She said the United States was “determined to make up for lost time both at home and abroad.” Denmark’s Minister for Climate and Energy, Connie Hedegaard, had warned on that occasion that American leadership on climate change would be undermined if the Obama Administration did not swiftly secure passage of laws to reduce carbon pollution. This could be one reason why in June, the Obama Administration steamrolled the cap-and-trade bill through Congress.

Another sticky issue at Copenhagen will be burden sharing by all nations on greenhouse gas emissions. Opposition to this has already been vocalized by New Delhi. The climate changers, and their backers within the scientific community, estimate that the “world must cut its emissions by 80% compared with 1990 levels to limit global warming to a 2C average rise.” It is almost certain that very few nations will be willing to share what they consider an irrational burden.

For instance, the Chinese government argues that it has a moral right to develop its economy, and carbon emissions will inevitably grow along with that. There is also the issue of industrialized nations effectively outsourcing their own carbon emissions to developing nations such as China. This is a consequence of huge quantities of carbon-intensive manufacturing taking place in China on behalf of buyers in the West. China wants consumer countries to take responsibility for the carbon. India’s position is not different from China’s on “burden sharing.”

Undermining China-India Cooperation 

In order to undercut a combined opposition against the climate change agenda at Copenhagen, the United States has kept China engaged in its efforts to secure a consensus on climate change issue. During July 27-28 bilateral talks, the first round of the China-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue, in Washington, the sides agreed to conduct more consultations on climate change in the future, so as to boost the overall relationship between the two nations.

“The two sides have further increased cooperation on the issue at the dialogue, which is very successful,” Xie Zhenhua, vice minister in charge of China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the top economic planning agency, told Xinhua news service in an interview at the sidelines of the dialogue. China and the United States signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which called for an ongoing climate policy dialogue and expanded cooperation in energy efficiency, renewable energy, smart grid technologies, electric vehicles, and carbon capture and sequestration.

During the talks, it was evident that neither China nor the United States was abandoning its position vis-a-vis the Copenhagen conference. “China indicated that the Copenhagen conference must stick to the basic framework of the Convention and its Protocol, strictly subject to the mandate of the Bali Roadmap, and intend to determine the key issue of the mid-term quantified substantial emission reduction targets for developed countries,” Xie told Xinhua.

Xie also pointed out that both the United States and China recognized that there are huge differences between the two countries in terms of national circumstances, stage of development, historic responsibility, and capabilities, and agreed that they should pursue active policies on climate change according to their respective responsibilities and capabilities.

Uneasiness in New Delhi 

The China-US bilateral dialogue on climate change has worried many in India. They are uneasy about the prospect that India could be isolated at Copenhagen. Jairam Ramesh’s statement that he would visit Brazil and Africa did not generate much hope. Brazil, eager to convert its vast sugar production capacity for the production of ethanol, will remain at best a weak supporter of India at the climate change conference, some say.

In New Delhi, Minister Ramesh was confronted by the local media, which pointed out that China and the United States have signed a bilateral treaty to combat climate change, and that this development will undermine India’s efforts to join up with China at the climate talks. But Ramesh dismissed such fears saying, “There is nothing to worry about the China-US deal. What countries do bilaterally have nothing to do with multilateral negotiations.” “And this [multilateral agreement] is quite apart from the bilateral agreements, which we may also have with the US,” he added.

But senior Indian economists, such as Rajiv Kumar, director of the New Delhi-based Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), pointed out in a recent article that the Chinese “have signed a MoU that is long on bilateral cooperation, yet gives them sufficient freedom in the ongoing negotiations.” By contrast, without a written agreement, India’s expectation that China will lend support to its stance could prove unfounded, leading to isolation of India at Copenhagen.

Indicative is that UK Minister of Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband was in Brazil recently. During his visit to Sao Paulo, the president of the Sao Paulo Sugarcane Agroindustry Union (Unica), Marcos Jank, pointed out that the emission of approximately 600 million tons of carbon dioxide had been prevented since the implementation of the ethanol program in Brazil, in the mid-1970s. The figure is equivalent to the planting of 6 billion trees in 20 years.

Miliband showed particular interest in the possibility of energy co-generation (bioelectricity) during the production process, through the burning of cane straw and bagasse, as well as in the possibility of producing second-generation ethanol. The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, alongside ethanol production and consumption, has been attracting increasing interest from the government of United Kingdom, Miliband added.

But despite the British efforts, the objective of both China and India at Copenhagen should be to expose the shenanigans put forth in any proposed multilateral document and block ratification of any such miserable hoax. They should make clear that the developing nations are in dire need of economic improvement and will not be tied down by any global monitoring agency trying to undermine their developmental efforts. Blocking this effort to stop developmental efforts under the pretext of climate change should be the sole agenda of both China and India.

The author is South Asian Analyst at Executive Intelligence Review News Services Inc.


User Comments Post a Comment

Back to Top