India blocking climate talks: Warsaw, Bangkok, and Kyoto negotiations

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/energy_around_the_world/2013/11/india_blocking_climate_talks_warsaw_bangkok_and_kyoto_negotiations.single.html

by jseliger • 13 years ago

50 64 13 years ago

slate.com

ashray3• 13 years ago

The problem with these talks are that from a developing country's perspective it looks like developed nations used cheap energy to get ahead. Now they want to curb usage of cheap energy in developing nations because:

1. Suddenly, they're affected by climate change, or claim to be.

2. It's just a ploy to increase energy costs for developing nations and keep them behind.

This may or may not be true but with this kind of perception, such talks will never go through. Also, there are choking levels of pollution in New Delhi [1] and Beijing. The cities are really uncomfortable, and there is a growing body of research to show that air pollution is carcinogenic. [2]

These countries would do well to curb pollution and use clean energy just in the interest of public health. Unfortunately, public health is very low on the agenda.

New Delhi is on the brink of ecological collapse (or maybe beyond that depending on the definition). There is no clean air, clean water, or clean soil. There are no numbers to indicate how many pollution related deaths occur in India annually or what kind of productivity is lost. Frankly, no one cares either. Until someone is personally effected (in a drastic way, like NO2 poisoning and dropping dead..) there will be no change. A very large percentage of children in New Delhi are diagnosed with asthma. [1]

Climate change is a far cry from getting discussed if domestic air pollution isn't a cause for concern.

Source: I am Indian and spend a lot of time there quite often.

[1] http://bkpk.me/cigarettes-arent-that-bad-after-all/

[2] http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/17/health/geneva-air-pollutio...

AxisOfEval• 13 years ago

Yeah. Bang on. That is how it is. Climb the ladder and then throw it away so that others can't get to where you are.

That fact of the matter is that every economy goes through this cycle (of growing up). Child labor, poor health-care, now pollution and soon patents.

While not being pertinent to this discussion, the country with the greatest patent lobbying bodies is also the country that committed the greatest IPR violations. More here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQZJ5Jl41nk

sliverstorm• 13 years ago

It's not a perfect cycle. LA's terrible smog was not a result of not caring, it was a result of the catalytic converter not existing.

Guess what, the catalytic converter exists now.

icambron• 13 years ago

I totally understand the sense of injustice here, but it doesn't actually change anything. This isn't really a question of what's fair. Climate change is an actual real thing that really does have to be dealt with, and it's pretty much impossible to deal with without the two most populous countries on board. Questions of ladders and cycles and all of the past and present irresponsibility on the part of Western countries doesn't change that. I'm pessimistic about the whole thing because I think the US and other rich countries will balk on it too (or just break it down the road), but that doesn't make India less wrong about it.

mahranch• 13 years ago

Climb the ladder and then throw it away so that others can't get to where you are.

Well that's a little disingenuous, no? I know the intellectually lazy like to point out how the west didn't have any restrictions 80-90 years ago during their industrial boom, but you have to keep in mind that 80-90 years ago, they didn't know what a greenhouse gas was. And they certainly couldn't know the long-term impact. We're ALL suffering from those mistakes and ignorance.

The earth is a spaceship and we ride along in it as we travel through our galaxy. It's a spaceship with a finite amount of available resources and a fragile atmosphere. Past ecological abuses are just that, in the past. We need to look forward to the future and protect our spaceship or we all die.

s-topper2• 13 years ago

...developing country's perspective it looks like developed nations used cheap energy to get ahead. Now they want to curb usage of cheap energy in developing nations because:

1. Suddenly, they're affected by climate change, or claim to be.

2. It's just a ploy to increase energy costs for developing nations and keep them behind.

You're spot on, there.

sandGorgon• 13 years ago

on the topic of Delhi, perhaps it is pertinent to read this - http://blog.ksidc.org/cng-cleans-up-delhi-air-kerala-awaits-...

or this

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/bharat-stage-iii-vehicles-...

There are enough of us trying to change the system from within (notwithstanding the Delhi election day after tomorrow). This has resulted in pollution being one of the main aspects of all three major political parties manifesto ([1] vs [2] vs [3])

So let's not say that "it isn't a cause for concern".

[1] http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/we-will-work-free-delh... [2] http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/congress-manifesto-pro... [3] http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/bjp-manifesto-taps-pub...

cscurmudgeon4• 13 years ago

Logically speaking for India to reduce its total emissions one of two things should happen: a huge number of people in India should die or Indians should consume almost nothing (everything else being equal.)

I don't understand how anyone can fault India for its current stance given that the state we are in was caused by the developed countries. The only way anyone can fault India is by asserting that an Indian life is worth less than a life in a developed country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio...

This is like moving into a new house and being forced to pay for the damage caused by the old tenants. And the old tenants are forcing you to pay for the damage while they live across the street in a brand new house constructed by stealing from the old place.

nickff3• 13 years ago

India has also been given opportunities never available to western countries during their period of industrialization, such as access to a wide variety of medicine and technology. I would just like it to be clear that India is in a different situation than what many others were at comparable levels of development.

ashray3• 13 years ago

Those options are expensive. Why should the rich and powerful give up profit margins for better public health and so that other countries don't get typhoons ? Unfortunately, money is much more powerful than any other motivation. The government helps curb such attitudes but the government listens to the people (atleast in theory..), and the people are indifferent.

lake992• 13 years ago

I don't see how access to medicine makes any difference to climate change policies. I'll leave that aside.

I don't quite get what you mean by "during their period of industrialization". Industrial progress does not work that way. One can't just pick a number (e.g. 25) and say India is 25 years behind the developed countries in its path to industrialization. Some Indians are still living in the stone age [1]. Others, such as the average Indian commenter on HN, is working on technology that we will all use, a couple of years down the line.

Whatever the case may be, I think you'd learn a great deal if you stayed in India for a couple of years. The recycling I have seen here is, in some ways, better than anywhere else in the world [2]. A few examples that you'll see commonly here: carry-bags and wrapping paper made of old newspapers, shoes re-soled using worn-out tractor tires, peddlers going door-to-door giving big discounts on new vessels, in exchange for old vessels, etc. People at various economic strata of society squeeze out every little bit of economic worth from every little thing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_people

[2] On second thought, it's quite likely that many others of the so-called developing countries would recycle about as much as Indians do.

tks21039• 13 years ago

India was also colonized.

You aren't being unbiased when you point out medicine and technology, but not colonialism.

ashray3• 13 years ago

From a climate change perspective, yes. But from just a general air pollution perspective, a lot of effective regulation needs to happen for industries to stop pumping noxious gases into the atmosphere. There are hardly any limits on industries and they can pump whatever they feel like into the air. Catalytic convertors for factories ? Almost non-existent!

I know that the discussion of general air pollution is slightly off topic here, but it really is very bad in New Delhi, and eventually does reach the subject of climate change.

Another perspective: If India doesn't care about air pollution within India which affects it's own population, it's unlikely they will care about some glaciers melting far away sometime in the future and affecting people in far away countries.

nickff3• 13 years ago

Catalytic converters operate at high temperatures, (600 C,) which is much higher than the exhaust temperature of most factory exhausts; thus they would not be compatible. In addition, most emissions from factories are not un-combusted fuels (which CCs process), for a couple of reasons including the simple fact that most industrial processes which emit exhausts are run at steady state, and have been optimized to the point where nearly all the fuel is utilized. Particulate emissions are a real issue, as are dangerous vapors, but these are eliminated by various other remedies (such as filters and other sequestrations).

demallien2• 13 years ago

Actually India is going to be hard-hit by climate change on several fronts. Firstly, many parts of southern India are low-lying and will be affected by rising sea levels. Then there's the effect that India is in the tropical zone - they've already experienced devastating monsoons and this is only predicted to get worse (see Typhoon Yolanda) as time goes by. Lastly, those glaciers aren't far away, they're right there in the Himalayas - India can expect to have major problems with drinking water supplies as those glaciers melt.

I'm not up with Indian politics, but I rather suspect that the current refusal to deal with emissions is more about climate change denialism mixed in with a sense of anti-colonial defiance than anything else. Don't forget that it's actually easier, politically speaking, for a developing country such as India to adopt renewable energy than it is for the developed world, goodness knows they have the engineers to make it happen! We need baseload power, our society has been constructed expecting it to exist, but as Indian populations get electricity, it's not going to be a major drama if electricity supply is intermittent - that's still way better than no electricity at all.

rodgerd2• 13 years ago

That's certainly true, but assuming the science is correct on this issue, we're squabbling over who gets which bits said of the houses while they're burning down. With us in them.

waps4• 13 years ago

I realize you're being metaphorical, but "houses burning down" ? Really ?

We'll have to relocate a few cities, or abandon them. Sure, not pleasant, but nobody will be burning.

danmaz74• 13 years ago

The problem is that climate change could create much more damage to India than to other, more developed countries.

dredmorbius14• 13 years ago

for India to reduce its total emissions one of two things should happen

There are two other possibilities you don't consider:

1. India could prevail in negotiating for carbon emission reductions elsewhere (the US, EU, Japan). Technology transfers greatly increasing India's GDP/bbl wouldn't hurt either -- it's presently around $400/bbl, the US sees $1000/bbl, most of Europe is in the $1500-$3000/bbl range.

2. Stunning advances in renewable, sustainable, and/or low-carbon energy technologies could allow for growth in India's standard of living without additional carbon emissions. I put the likelihood of this as low.

Long run: there's a balance of population and per-capita resource consumption. The total sustainable rate is fixed. The question is: do you wish for a future with a very high population, or a for one with a high per-capita standard of living? They're at odds.

cscurmudgeon4• 13 years ago

I wish for a future where every human being has more or less the same standards of living independent of where they were born. Or at the least, the same "pollution limits" independent of borders.

The earth and the climate don't care who pollutes how much. The total amount of pollution matters and there shouldn't be a privileged few consuming magnitudes higher than the rest. Plain and simple.

yetanotherphd• 13 years ago

There is something almost colonialist about the way the arguments on the Indian side are never given (although their motives are discussed in depth).

Last time I checked, both China and India argued that global emissions limits should be done on a per-capita basis, and that therefore China and India should not be obligated to reduce their emissions.

While there are arguments to be made against this claim (e.g. should China and India be rewarded for their large populations?), it would be nice to see these arguments being addressed directly, rather than assuming that non-Westerners are only ever driven by base politics.

waps4• 13 years ago

Maybe this is realpolitik, but how about assuming everybody is only driven by base politics.

Or how about anybody who isn't rich enough to have at least savings sufficient for 6 months without any income (which is probably 98% of the planet) is only ever driven by short-term politics.

sibinpthomas• 13 years ago

A counter argument - http://swaminomics.org/a-climate-summit-that-matters-little/

From the perspective of India or for that matter any developing nation aspiring to free its people from the shackles of poverty the above argument is commonsensical (sic) while the Slate article is condescending and biased in favour of developed countries.

Excerpts from the above article -

Copenhagen hardly matters. If it doesn’t produce an agreement, it clearly won’t matter. But even if it yields an agreement, that will matter very little.

Why? Because reducing carbon emissions by 80% from the 1990 levels – the target for 2050 for rich countries – depends on technological breakthroughs, not political pledges at Copenhagen.

...

In the Kyoto treaty on climate change, 37 rich countries pledged to reduce their carbon emissions to 5% below their 1990 level. But most actually increased their emissions. These very treaty-breakers now propose another treaty!

...

Despite climate uncertainties, it makes sense to mitigate emissions as insurance against a disaster that may never happen. Treaties are often signed to provide mutual insurance against political and economic risks. But if the insurance premium becomes costly enough to threaten economic distress, governments will abandon the treaties (a la Maastricht). No government will create a recession today to avoid a future disaster that may not happen anyway.

The lesson for Indian strategy at Copenhagen is clear. India should talk tough and not worry about being called a deal-breaker. When a deal’s value is so uncertain, it matters little whether it’s broken or not. India should keep its commitments light, and be ready to jump ship if others do. Never assume that others will actually implement climate pledges.

dredmorbius14• 13 years ago

The dilemma: the GDP growth of China and India are almost wholly accounted for by increasing energy consumption, as I've detailed on G+:

https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/LyQx8fcv...

You can see the relationship between GDP and energy via Wolfram+Alpha:

China: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=china+total+primary+ene...

India: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=india+total+primary+ene...

That said: the entire planet's got a bit of a problem, and the truth is that growing the economies of China and India through yet more increased fossil fuel consumption (much of both nation's energy comes from the worst possible source: coal), will have tremendously bad consequences.

Another factor is that the promise of economic growth has long stood in for efforts to produce greater equity -- with a growing pie, a promise of a better future can be made to all. When the pie stops growing (or even slows markedly) that relief valve is no longer available. Worse, the dynamics of various systems and institutions, including liberal democratic ones (but also "free market" systems) appear to behave pathologically under resource constraint circumstances (not that non-democratic ones behave better in all cases). It's a rather sticky problem (and for the record: I happen to like many of the features of democratic and liberal institutions).

gygygy• 13 years ago

"Tiny" per-person carbon footprint compared to the west. 3rd highest.

And India is the problem?

InclinedPlane• 13 years ago

If CO2 emissions are truly an existential threat to the world's population then, aside from other obvious steps, the wealthy countries of the world should be subsidizing the adoption of carbon neutral energy sources in the developing world. Asking the poor to forgo stepping up into affluence is too much to ask and immoral in the extreme.

s-topper2• 13 years ago

Looking at these data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio...

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=USA+total+primary+energ...

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=USA+vs+India+coal+consu...

USA should make do with one gas-guzzling truck less per person, instead of bullshitting their pseudo-intellectual "green" preaching on India and China.

rrrazdan• 13 years ago

Lets leave aside everything else. One Indian's per capita emission should be exactly equal to one American's per capita emission. Isn't that justice?

The world's per capita emission in 2010 was 3 times that of India. US emits 10 times more than us on a per capita basis. It befuddles me. HN please explain how India is in the wrong here?

India blocking climate talks: Warsaw, Bangkok, and Kyoto negotiations

Related Stories