Science, Innovation, Politics
"India will not accept any emission-reduction target -- period. This is a non-negotiable stand.”
Obviously the House of Representatives passage of Waxman-Markey left a lasting impression on him.
Non-negotiable stands are famous last words. Only time can tell. I lived in India for a while and its politics is no more written in stone than anywhere else. It might just be a bargaining ploy for Copenhagen.
So now Jim Hansen and the Actress-of-the-Day will be protesting at the Indian Embassy in Washington D.C., right? The remarkable indifference of Western climate elites to Asian government policy suggests to me that they care more about Euro-American government policy than they do about global climate. To believe that India and China are going to "follow" Obama is magical thinking.
It seems to me that this would argue that only innovation resulting in economically desirable alternative energy will really solve the global problem.If this were true, then I should spend my volunteer hours teaching high school students math so there are more engineers to invent these products. Not to single myself out, but if we all saw cheap carbon free energy as the only ultimate solution, all our climate efforts might have to be redirected.And creating more offset designers, discussers, and auditors and bureaucracy is actually anti-environment, because it focuses our funds on diversions instead of dealing directly with the problem. So perhaps supporters of Waxman-Markey are treasonous to the environment?;)Mr. Krugman- are you listening?
And this is a big surprise why...?
SharonIf the apocalyptic claims of global disaster are correct, we should be shutting down NASA and CERN and every other scientific money pit and putting all those minds on non-carbon transportation and electricity generation that are actually cost-effective. If the ship is sinking, do you go on trimming the sails and turning the rudder, or do you get a pail in every hand and start bailing?
Not Whitey- you raise an interesting point; if the situation is as serious as many claim, and if those scientists operated on that belief, there would be a push to reduce all other research budgets (nice to do) to focus on energy research (must do). But I have yet to see that suggested by climate scientists.How much more powerful to solve the global issue than suggesting I bike to work!
If I put solar panels on my helmet and bike and use the solar energy that I absorb on my way to and from work to help a homeless person charge his cell phone do I qualify as a carbon offset?
India's position, while stated unusually clearly by the Environment Minister, remains consistent with what all Parties agreed in the Bali Action Plan in December 2007 (Decision 1/CP.13: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf#page=3). The Bali Action Plan makes a distinction between "commitments" of developed countries and "actions" by developing countries, as follows:[quote](i) Measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions, including quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives, by all developed country Parties, while ensuring the comparability of efforts among them, taking into account differences in their national circumstances; (ii) Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties in the context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner;[/quote]This text was agreed after a great deal of drama, which can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-G1v--DONMThe Indian Minister's statement should not be interpreted as him saying India will not take "actions" to control emissions, in line with para (ii) above. The emphasis is on the word "targets", which India will not accept, largely because they could be interpreted as "commitments".The question is whether or not his use of "any" means he also excludes the possibility of India accepting voluntary targets, which would be a setback.Still, not accepting targets does not mean not accepting para (ii) above.
Let's add just a wee swib of nuance to this extremely standard Indian politicking. http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=49747