|
| 'We will report to UN on climate change every two years' | | Q&A: Jairam Ramesh, Minister for Environment and Forests |
| Leslie D'Monte & Kirtika Suneja / New Delhi Dec 05, 2009, 00:15 IST |
|
 Ahead of the climate change talks in Copenhagen, Environment and Forests Minister Jairam Ramesh clarified India’s stance in Parliament, categorically stating the country will neither accept any legally-binding emission cuts nor any agreement which demands a peaking year statement. In an interview with Leslie D’Monte and Kirtika Suneja, he explains the rationale. Edited excerpts:
Do voluntary cuts amount to a pledge which India has taken under pressure from developed countries? If yes, will there be a review of this pledge which the US is demanding?
Yes. It is our pledge as we said it on the floor of Parliament but has nothing to do with the pledge and review mechanism that the US is proposing. India does the right thing ultimately but does not do it right. In international affairs, timing is of essence. Had we done this 4-5 months ago, the atmospherics would have been different but now, the timing is Copenhagen. Hence, the uproar. We have nothing to hide and there are no black boxes in India. It is an open system and I have a menu of mitigation options. However, we do plan to report to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) once in every two years. Consultations are on in this regard.
Will reporting to the UNFCCC not upset other G-77 countries?
The Bali Action Plan puts legally-binding commitments on developed countries and voluntary obligations on the part of developing countries. At Copenhagen, we are not rewriting the Bali Action Plan or Kyoto Protocol. Copenhagen will fall like a pack of cards if Kyoto or Bali are to be rewritten. However, if we can have trade policy discussions with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) every year and fiscal and monitory policy discussions with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), why can’t we have a climate policy review or a mitigation policy? The Chinese and the G-77 countries are not comfortable with this climate policy review as this is considered against the dharma of G-77. We are with G-77, but we also have to look after our national interests. We are walking on two legs and we have to be flexible.
The US, however, is making no such commitment?
The US has to be on board and that is very important. We have to devise an instrument of accession to have the US in a legally-binding framework without abandoning the Kyoto Protocol. But we also have to be realistic. We must go to Copenhagen with a strong domestic agenda. It should not be “we will do things only if you do”, but “we are doing this, you do this”. We must negotiate from a position of strength. At Copenhagen, we must reflect our domestic obligations in a credible manner internationally as global warming and climate change are global issues and the world is well within its rights to ask for India’s plan for reflecting these in a credible manner. The 20-25 per cent emission intensity cuts’ pledge stands even if nothing concrete happens in Copenhagen.
The entire issue is now more about politics and not climate science. One country that has benefited from this is China which is the highest emitter but is still in the block of developing countries. India has to play in different courts, and, hence, the emission intensity cuts. South Africa, on the other hand, has pledged 2025 as its peaking year and that is a more difficult target.
Why have we chosen emission intensity cuts, not energy intensity reduction?
Energy intensity is an intermediate concept while emission intensity is the final output. Energy intensity leads to emission intensity and the former is a multiple of the carbon content of energy. We had figures for both but the whole world is using emission intensity and it will look odd if India stands out. We debated the pros and cons of both while discussing it with the Planning Commission, but decided that emission intensity is more internationally acceptable and a more credible number. Emission intensity is synonymous with carbon intensity.
Will the emission intensity cuts we take be compensated for by carbon credits?
We have approved 1,400 projects as part of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) that could attract approximately $6.15 billion into the country as foreign direct investment (FDI) by 2012 through the sale of Certified Emission Reduction certificates. In fact, 10 per cent of India’s annual greenhouse gas will be neutralised because of this. India is the second-largest in terms of the number of CDM projects (after China), but is the best in terms of implementing them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Read Business news in |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Content Guide
