Jayanthi Natarajan. Even before I write a single word, I would like to pay my respect to the Indian minister of forest and environment. Whatever be the outcome, the fact that she stood her ground in face of stiff European pressure and dwindling group of supporters speaks volumes about her courage. The marvelous oration skills on display won applauds from one and all.
Back to the topic. Even though a lot of people believe that "Durban platform" has been successful, I would beg to differ. But first lets see what happened in Durban. The Kyoto protocol's first period is coming to end in 2012. Hence a new deal was needed. But what is Kyoto protocol? It is basically a binding contract on most of Annex-I countries to put a limit on their harmful gas emission. The failure to do so would lead to an even stiffer bound(30% more) on the emission for the second period. All countries apart from the US agreed to sign the deal. Now that the first period was coming to an end, the plan for the second had to be drawn.
What happened there was that the countries compelled by protocol, led by the EU demanded a binding limit be imposed on countries like China and India also. Both the countries refused to do so. I agree with that. If we go back in history, we see that in 1970s, when the first hints of harmful effects of CFC were conjectured, the European countries refused to buy the argument and failed to reduce the emission fearing a slowdown in growth. Only in 1987 meet at Montreal was an emission cut obligation signed. That, after it was proven that there is an hole in Ozone layer above Antarctica. Perhaps the EU forgets its own faults. To be an economically developed continent, it never bothered about the climate. So how can it advocate for bindings on the developing countries? The BASIC nations, led by India vehemently opposed the EU's argument. The body blow cam when Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and Least Developed Countries (LDC) gave their support to EU. The only reason for this could have been that they were more bothered about the $100 bn green fund which they wouldn't have got if the emission target weren't finalized.The other important feature was the proposal to sign a new treaty by 2015 which would be enforced by 2020.
The good news is that India managed to get "equity" in the deal- equity means that taking into account historical emission, the global emission target cuts would be imposed which basically translates to the fact that there would be stiffer targets for developed countries than for developing countries.
What are the main drawbacks of the conference? The US, one if the largest emitter of harmful gases is still not a part of deal. Russia and Japan refused to sign the second agreement.Canada, a signatory of Kyoto has failed to meet the target, and consequently withdrew from the treaty. What has emerged from the meet is a set of promises that are meant to just reassure everyone. Persisting with the equity feature would be a challenging problem for developing countries as the developed nations would push for the negation of this. Deciding the emission limits would be the toughest task for both the developed and developing nations.
A new treaty would come into act by 2020. Scientist say that by the end of the century, the temperature would rise by 4 C. We are trying to run away from responsibility. There is a serious need to address the issue of climate in a more constructive way.
As we wait for political consensus between 190+ countries, beware that the ozone hole above us grows in size with every passing second.
No comments:
Post a Comment