The statement of Jairam Ramesh, Indian Environment & Forest Minister is clearly depressing with no sign of hope. With every passing day it is becoming clear that Cancun is also going to end up as a “tea party” with lot of tamasha.

Now one thing is going to be pretty clear that the symbolic activism promoted by civil society in the North which claims itself to be international has failed and failed on a large scale. Forming numbers, switching off lights, dancing in public places, commemorating days is not the way to ask for radical action. Something more need to be done. Blame will also go to our prominent “activists” based in India & developing south, who talk about Gandhi but leave his lifestyle for others to follow. Many from the same lobby have a lot to say about Marxism and plight of proletariat class but prefer to live in bourgeois houses. The carbon footprint of “Messiahs or Saviours” of planet earth is also very high & similar to that of an American from high income group.

The words of Sheikh Farid (Sufi Saint) “Farida Je Tun Akal Latif Hain/ Kaale Lekh Na Lekh/Apnane Gireban Mein/Sir Nevan Kar Dekh” are very much relevant for all the “environmentalists” & those who call themselves as “climate activists.” It is the high time to seek retrospection; bring the real voices out instead of taking old stinking hypocrites as leaders, if we want something worth while in Mexico.

The issue of Climate Change will be hard to digest in the coming future. As Mr. Dunu Roy (of Hazard Center) rightly points out that we the people from the urban middle class are the most vulnerable species on earth. Forget about “cute” polar bears or “mighty” Bengal tigers, now even our future is at stake. It is for us to now take rigorous course of action which calls for change and pressurize world leaders to do something. We have enough time, Mexico is faraway, lets brainstorm and figure out alternatives which includes the interests and well being of all those who are going to suffer with the worst of the climate emergency.

Cancun should not merely end up as conference of “parties,” but instead a call for all Davids to take on Goliaths!

(The views expressed here in this post are of the writer not representing organization as a whole)

The morning that followed
Our message was echoed.
A failure! A failure!
My heart in despair.

The science lost, funding tossed,
No commitment in sight.
A stench of injustice,
The result: A failed plight.

“What more did you expect?”
Accusing voices chimed,
“Your efforts are a waste
Of carbon, cash and time”.

Is it a failure?
Were we mistaken?
How will we remember
Copenhagen?

How will we remember
Copenhagen?

I will remember the:

Forming of three fifty
In hundreds of states.
The Hundred thousand
Who marched till late.
Millions worldwide that stood,
And more that signed
In protest for the rights
For all Human Kind.

I will remember the:

Largest mobilisation
In world’s history.
Working in unity.
Despite culture or country.
Rising above divisions
In the “social order”;
Be religion, gender
Or a political border.

I will remember the:

Youth in the negotiations
Who brought heart and tears.
A champion for the voices,
The leaders needed to hear.
The Indigenous people
In the justice fight,
For our Mother’s Land to
Which we have equal right.

I will remember the:

Largest gathering
Of Heads in one room.
Of countries pleading,
To save them from doom.
Prayer to protect nations.
Have you seen such heart?
In a Global affair, it
Is a hopeful start.

But a start is all it is.

Do not ignore the Truth.
Two degrees is death to
Africa, the islands,
And our generation.
In our success there still
Remains a challenge,
A long way to go, it
Needs our dedication

It will take:

One goal.
Seven continents.
A hundred paths.
Thousands of leaders.
Millions of voices and
Billions of hearts.
To arrive at our
Destination.

Many may call this vision naive.
But perhaps naivety is all we have?
As long as there is love in the world,
We are on the right track.

Where there is love,
There is hope.
Where there is hope,
There is inspiration.
Where there is inspiration,
There is change.
And if there is change,
We can stop climate change.

The youth is more interested than anyone else in the future.

Until very recently, the discussion revolved around the kind of society we would have. Today, the discussion centers on whether human society will survive.

These are not dramatic phrases. We must get used to the true facts. Hope is the last thing human beings can relinquish. With truthful arguments, men and women of all ages, especially young people, have waged an exemplary battle at the Summit and taught the world a great lesson.

It is important now that Cuba and the world come to know as much as possible of what happened in Copenhagen. The truth can be stronger than the influenced and often misinformed minds of those holding in their hands the destiny of the world.

If anything significant was achieved in the Danish capital, it was that the media coverage allowed the world public to watch the political chaos created there and the humiliating treatment accorded to Heads of States or Governments, ministers and thousands of representatives of social movements and institutions that in hope and expectation traveled to the Summit’s venue in Copenhagen. The brutal repression of peaceful protesters by the police was a reminder of the behavior of the Nazi assault troops that occupied neighboring Denmark on April 1940.

But no one could have thought that on December 18, 2009, the last day of the Summit, this would be suspended by the Danish government –a NATO ally associated with the carnage in Afghanistan– to offer the conference’s plenary hall to President Obama for a meeting where only he and a selected group of guests, 16 in all, would have the exclusive right to speak.

Obama’s deceitful, demagogic and ambiguous remarks failed to involve a binding commitment and ignored the Kyoto Framework Convention. He then left the room shortly after listening to a few other speakers. Among those invited to take the floor were the highest industrialized nations, several emerging economies and some of the poorest countries in the world. The leaders and representatives of over 170 countries were only allowed to listen.

At the end of the speeches of the 16 chosen, Evo Morales, with the authority of his indigenous Aymara origin and his recent reelection with 65% of the vote as well as the support of two-thirds of the Bolivian House and Senate, requested the floor. The Danish president had no choice but to yield to the insistence of the other delegations. When Evo had concluded his wise and deep observations, the Danish had to give the floor to Hugo Chavez. Both speeches will be registered by history as examples of short and timely remarks. Then, with their mission duly accomplished they both left for their respective countries. But when Obama disappeared, he had yet to fulfill his task in the host country.

From the evening of the 17th and the early morning hours of the 18th, the Prime Minister of Denmark and senior representatives of the United States had been meeting with the Chairman of the European Commission and the leaders of 27 nations to introduce to them –on behalf of Obama– a draft agreement in whose elaboration none of the other leaders of the rest of the world had taken part. It was an antidemocratic and practically clandestine initiative that disregarded the thousands of representatives of social movements, scientific and religious institutions and other participants in the Summit.

Through the night of the 18th and until 3:00 a.m. of the 19th, when many Heads of States had already departed, the representatives of the countries waited for the resumption of the sessions and the conclusion of the event. Throughout the 18th, Obama held meetings and press conferences, and the same did the European leaders. Then, they left.

Something unexpected happened then: at three in the morning of the 19th, the Prime Minister of Denmark convened a meeting to conclude the Summit. By then, the countries were represented by ministers, officials, ambassadors and technical staff.

However, an amazing battle was waged that morning by a group of representatives of Third World countries challenging the attempt by Obama and the wealthiest on the planet to introduce a document imposed by the United States as one agreed by consensus in the Summit.

The representative of Venezuela, Claudia Salerno, showed with impressive energy her right hand bleeding from strongly slamming on the table to claim her right to take the floor. Her tone of voice and the dignity of her arguments will never be forgotten.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba made a vigorous speech of approximately one thousand words from which I have chosen a few paragraphs to include in this Reflection:

“The document that you, Mister Chairman, repeatedly claimed that did not exist shows up now. […] we have seen drafts circulating surreptitiously and being discussed in secret meetings…”

“…I deeply resent the way you have led this conference.”

“…Cuba considers the text of this apocryphal draft extremely inadequate and inadmissible. The goal of 2 degrees centigrade is unacceptable and it would have incalculable catastrophic consequences…”

“The document that you are unfortunately introducing is not binding in any way with respect to the reduction of the greenhouse effect gas emissions.”

“I am aware of the previous drafts, which also through questionable and clandestine procedures, were negotiated by small groups of people…”

“The document you are introducing now fails to include the already meager and lacking key phrases contained in that draft…”

“…as far as Cuba is concerned, it is incompatible with the universally recognized scientific view sustaining that it is urgent and inescapable to ensure the reduction of at least 45% of the emissions by the year 2020, and of no less than 80% or 90% by 2050.”

“Any argument on the continuation of the negotiations to reach agreement in the future to cut down emissions must inevitably include the concept of the validity of the Kyoto Protocol […] Your paper, Mister Chairman, is a death certificate of the Kyoto Protocol and my delegation cannot accept it.”

“The Cuban delegation would like to emphasize the preeminence of the principle of ‘common by differentiated responsibilities,’ as the core of the future process of negotiations. Your paper does not include a word on that.”

“This draft declaration fails to mention concrete financial commitments and the transfers of technologies to developing countries, which are part of the obligations contracted by the developed countries under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change […] Mister Chairman, by imposing their interests through your document, the developed nations are avoiding any concrete commitment.”

“…What you, Mister Chairman, define as ‘a group of representative leaders’ is to me a gross violation of the principle of sovereign equality consecrated in the United Nations Charter…”

“Mr. Chairman, I formally request that this statement be included in the final report of the works of this regrettable and shameful 15th session of the Conference of the Parties.”

The representatives of the countries had been given only one hour to present their views. This led to complicated, shameful and embarrassing situations.

Then, a lengthy debate ensued where the delegations from the developed countries put a heavy pressure on the rest to make the conference adopt the abovementioned document as the final result of their deliberations.

A small number of countries firmly insisted on the grave omissions and ambiguities of the document promoted by the United States, particularly the absence of a commitment by the developed countries on the reduction of carbon emissions and on the financing that would allow the South countries to adopt alleviating and adjustment measures.

After a long and extremely tense discussion, the position of the ALBA countries and Sudan, as President of the G-77, prevailed that the document was unacceptable to the conference thus it could not be adopted.

In view of the absence of consensus, the Conference could only “take note” of the existence of that document representing the position of a group of about 25 countries.

After that decision was made, –at 10:30 in the morning Denmark’s time– Bruno, together with other ALBA representatives, had a friendly discussion with the UN Secretary to whom they expressed their willingness to continue struggling alongside the United Nations to prevent the terrible consequences of climate change. Their mission completed, our Foreign Minister and Cuban Vicepresident Esteban Lazo departed to come back home and attend the National Assembly session. A few members of the delegation and the ambassador stayed in Copenhagen to take part in the final procedures.

This afternoon they reported the following:

“…both, those who were involved in the elaboration of the document, and those like the President of the United States who anticipated its adoption by the conference…as they could not disregard the decision to simply ‘take note’ of the alleged ‘Copenhagen Agreement,’ they tried to introduce a procedure allowing the other COP countries that had not been a part of the shady deal to adhere to it, and make it public, the intention being to pretend such an agreement was legal, something that could precondition the results of the negotiations that should carry on.”

“Such belated attempt was again firmly opposed by Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia. These countries warned that a document which had not been adopted by the Convention could not be considered legal and that there was not a COP document; therefore, no regulations could be established for its alleged adoption…”

“This is how the meeting in Copenhagen is coming to an end, without the adoption of the document surreptitiously worked out in the past few days under the clear ideological guidance of the US Administration…”

Tomorrow our attention will be focused on the National Assembly.

Lazo, Bruno and the other members of the delegation will be arriving at midnight today. On Monday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be able to explain in details and with the necessary accuracy the truth of what happened at the Summit.

Fidel Castro Ruz
December 19, 2009
8:17p.m.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declares that a fair deal can only be reached through further talks

In a speech immediately following President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stated unequivocally that negotiations would need to continue until 2010, to strike any kind of agreement that would enhance global action on climate change.

“To settle for something that would be seen as diminished expectations and diminished implementation,” he said, “would be in our view a very wrong message to emerge from this conference. We should therefore reaffirm categorically that our negotiations will continue on the basis of the Bali mandate.”

Singh also emphasised and re-emphasised the importance of equity in any global climate deal, adding, “any new regime will have moral credibility and authority only if it acknowledges that every citizen of this globe has an equal entitlement to the global atmospheric space.”

Like all the leaders who spoke before him, Singh described plans for voluntary domestic action on climate change. However, unlike President Obama, who suggested that “America has made our choice; we have charted our commitments,” and that the rest of the world must follow, Prime Minister Singh said that India would be willing to consider additional actions as part of a fair global deal.

Given the enduring gulf between the expectations expressed by world leaders this morning, it would seem highly unlikely that a deal can be concluded in the coming hours.

However, it’s not yet clear whether any of the political texts drafted earlier today could provide a high-level agreement that would satisfy all parties; or if not, how an alternative would now be developed.

Days and weeks before the negotiations began, a pale sense of gloom already crept into the minds of civil society and the negotiators themselves as the size of the task ahead of them grew gargantuan with every passing day. Nothing was done and now at the end, confusion and desperation prevails which is the result of a last ditch attempt to saving the COP and signing a deal.

As the news pours in, even a political deal seems to be a distant reality. India and China threaten to walk out of the negotiations for being continuously put under pressure to accept a Danish text and disobey the Kyoto and the BAP process. The third Danish was rejected and rightly so. Denmark is dragging its face through the mud to get a deal signed. The BASIC text which was to be reformed after taking into consideration the strong proposals by the African countries and the AOSIS is still in the docks. A COP15 Copenhagen declaration is expected that will only have the essentials with confirmed figures on issues like REDD that has seen good progress. Emissions cuts and finances are still in the dark and a shared vision under long term cooperative action may form partial Annex texts of the declaration.

The youth delegations and civil society is completely disappointed and angry at the negotiations and the world leaders who have once again failed to deliver. This is nothing less than a criminal offense on the world and the leaders have been caught red handed.

” Only a miracle can make sure we have a legally binging deal in Copenhagen” – Jairam Ramesh.

My name is X, and in the year 2050 I will be X years old.

I am proud to represent the International youth climate movement.

Christina Ora, a 17 year old from the Solomon Islands, addressed the opening plenary last Monday. She said “I was born in 1992. You have been negotiating all my life. You cannot tell us that you need more time.”

We have worked the past two years promising to reach a conclusion in Copenhagen. Now it seems you will not get it done.

This is unacceptable, you should be ashamed.

The United Nations was created to solve humanitarian and social crises, but instead of standing united, you are now the Divided Nations.

Humanity can and must do better.

Mother Nature will not negotiate with us.

You must set targets to get us back below 350parts per million.

You must agree on fair and sufficient financing – 5-7% of GDP – to pay back the ecological debt to the most affected.

We the youth dream of a sustainable future shared by all humanity.

There is wisdom in the people’s hearts, and people are ingenious. We CAN solve this crisis – IF ONLY we choose to.

We do not accept the 3-degree deal that the current proposals on the table are bringing us to, and we support those nations who won’t sign this suicide pact.

We call on all nations not to accept anything that does not guarantee survival and climate justice for all.

There must be no decisions about us, without us. We refuse to have our futures sold and ‘offset’ by polluter lobbyists.

The Youth believe that you care enough for the future of your children and grandchildren to sign a legally-binding, fair and ambitious, inspiring agreement which reflects ‘the fierce urgency of now’.

Rest assured that we the youth will keep on working, and we will keep on pushing you harder and harder, until that necessary deal is sealed.

Thank you.

Youth Statement at COP15

At the COP15 process too, I believe some of the leaders personal experiences impact their motivations and their morales. We had a killer proposal from Bolivia yesterday where the the emission reduction targets are being kept at 300ppm of CO2 and the temperature rise being limited to 1 degree centigrade. A proposal of this order has never been conceived and may never see the light of the day considering the complex web of diplomacies and the lobbies involved. The Indian Youth delegation decided to provide a rapid response action for this bold leadership in the highly depressing environment of the negotiations.

Linkesh Diwan, our fellow member came up with the following song -

Every day their stalling and
they’re saying the same old things again
hm-hm-hm

We’ve got to take the boldest steps
there’s work to do; clean up the mess.
hm-hm-hm
My future looks me in the eye,
says to me the time is nigh
It’s time to see the world agree,
time for responsibility!
Bolivia…

Taking a sneak peek into the personal life of the President of Bolivia – Evo Morales I understood the motivations for this bold policy proposal. Morales is known to spearhead the movement to defend the interests of coca growers and to develop a new hydrocarbon law which guarantees 50 percent of revenue to Bolivia. Bolivia is fostering a wonderful program under his leadership. Illiteracy was eradicated in less than three years: 824,101 Bolivian learned how to read and write; 24,699 did so also in Aymara and 13,599 in Quechua.Bolivia is the third country free of illiteracy, following Cuba and Venezuela.Bolivia, one of the three poorest nations in the hemisphere, has brought under state control the country’s most important energy and mineral resources while respecting and compensating every single affected interest.

The song has drawn attention from the Bolivian Ambassador as this was a display of solidarity for their bold moves. The Indian youth have now been invited to sing the solidarity song at the President’s address on Dec 16. It is going to be one chance to rekindle the inspiring movement to redefine leadership at the COP15.

1.To keep the warming below 2° C by reducing greenhouse gas concentration ultimately to 350 ppm CO2 equivalent. The peaking emissions with 2013-2017 commitment period and rapidly declining emissions by at-least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
2. It addresses that the industrialized countries as a group must take a target of more than 40% below 1990 levels by 2050. this can be achieved by limiting the offsets and ensuring that the domestic emissions are reduced by at-least 30% below 1990 levels by 2020, accounting for emissions and removals from Land use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF). The LULUCF credits must not undermine or substitute for the significant investments and efforts required to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
3.The developing countries must be supported in their efforts to limit the growth of their industrial emissions, making substantial reductions below BAU
4.Emissions from deforestation and degradation must be reduced to zero by 2020, funded by at least US$ 35 billion per year from developed countries
5.Developed countries need to provide atleast US$195 billion in public financing per year by 2020, in addition to ODA commitments for developing country actions
6.Double counting must be avoided. This means that offsets purchased by an industrialized country from developing countries to help meet the industrialized country’s emission reduction goals cannot be counted as also helping the developing country to meet its emission reduction goals. Payments for offsets should not be double counted.

Thus the Copenhagen outcomes must be legally binding and enforceable. Until the international communities agrees to a system that provides better environmental outcomes, a stronger compliance mechanism and has wide spread support, the kyoto protocol should continue with a second commitment. A complementary agreement should provide emission reduction commitments by the US comparable to other developed countries, incorporate financial commitments and cover developing country actions.

Despite having a net power surplus in Bhutan, only 50% of the rural Bhutan has access to clean and renewable energy. So the objective of the project is that to provide equitable distribution of clean, affordable and reliable electricity to all rural households which has the set target at an estimated cost of US$138 million for all by 2013. Over the last 5 decades Bhutan invested about US $88 million in providing electricity for 44,000 rural households. The opportunity of this CDM project is replacing the existing fossil and non-renewable bio mass energy in the un-electrified areas. The project will not only displace potential CO2 emissions but also generate revenue steam through sales of CERs which will mitigate the financial and technological barriers. A successful realization of this project as CDM could provide a break through model for other developing countries to replicate.

Now, what is the island nation’s proposal on the table? The new proposal follows the elements of the Bali Action Plan closely, sets out a shared vision and the goals of limiting temperature increase to well below 1.5 C and stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at 350 ppm at the most.

Although it all seems fine, there are reasons why this seems unacceptable to India, China, Saudi Arabia, South Africa. Tuvalu’s proposal came into light primarily because they felt insecure of their demands and the fear of not having a deal by the end of Copenhagen for the world. Copenhagen would be acclaimed a success only when there is a large commitment from the Annex 1 countries and Tuvalu’s suggestion is to create an architecture which would seem irresisteble to this crowd, eventually creating an alternate vehicle for the Kyoto agreement. This seems quite a good suggestion but the countries who are objecting to it are of the opinion that this is not the right timing to begin this consultation process as it destroys the morale of the countries who are already part of the original Kyoto protocol. The other allegation that has been doing the rounds is that parties to the Tuvalu text may seem like this is an escape mechanism to the more stricter versions in the Kyoto agreement and they might be able to get more appeasing conversations at the new podium created in this mechanism.

The matter has been put on a voting mechanism (never before done in a UNFCCC process, as all decision are usually taken in a consensus mechanism) and we await the outcome.

Hang around to see if this is true value or lost value to the table of COP15?

History will Judge Them

Hearing of these fabulous, unbelievable, and completely incomprehensible, reprehensible ideas, one may be excused for asking themselves the very prudent questions: What are these negotiators thinking? Are they thinking? Who are these “people” who can do such dastardly things with our future?

And finally… Are they monsters or people?

It’s hard to answer this positively, when you see the state of our Mother Earth, and the state of irresponsibility in the negotiations. It’s hard to remember that the ones making these outrageous policies are still people, still human like the rest of us. But the fact is, they are human, just like you and me. They are exactly the same as the legions who will have to leave their homes to the rising ocean, the ones who will be hungry due to food shortages. They are exactly the same as the hundreds of millions of people who will die of thirst when the glaciers of the Himalayas are gone.

The Past

Today Arun and I ran into a German based in Australia, who was manning the booth of University of Technology, Sydney, and University of New South Wales. We had gone to pay our respects to the university that is paying for our accomodation, and we started talking to her about the negotions. By the by, she mentioned that she had previously been a negotiator for the German delegation, for about 10 years! Arun didn’t miss the great opportunity to question her about the negotiation inside story. It was nice to get an idea of the process that goes into these papers, which hold so much doom, and so much promise, for so many people, animals, ecosystems, lives.

What she said was very interesting. By and large, the negotiating teams are made of a mix of experts, burocrats, and politians. If there are disagreements within a delegation, the dispute goes up to the higher levels, and whatever is said, is usually final.

During the negotiations, every morning, each delegation has it’s own debreifing, wherein they decide on points to push for the day. It really is a lot of work for them, too.

Our German-Australian friend being a past negotiator, we found her very frank and engaging, willing to teach us, and very knowledgable. I asked her specially whether the people doing the negotiations actually cared about the environment. Arun grilled her on the parlimentary process back home, how their decisions were arrived at, and how they represented their countries.

It seems that, in her experience, all the policy positions are decided by the delegations themselves, not by a parlimentary process back home. For some years, there are people who really care about the environment, and then negotiations really go forward. Other times, some people manage to hold things up, or insist on backwards regulations. It really all depends on the people running the delegation – a very personal manner. Decision can only be taken when each and every country agrees on the topic at hand. This requirement for consensus has been the cause of many years of delay, as just one country disagreeing pushes the decision further to the future. It’s shocking to realize that the individual personalities of the head negotiators have such a heavy influence on our future!

The Present

In my ramblings around the Bella Center (mostly in search of free food), I’ve found that the delegations from Africa are the most approachable. They are by and large friendly, and talking with them I find that we all have a common, unifying approach, of Climate Justice. Another feature common among the African delegations seems to be a feeling of frustration, a feeling that the negotiations are largely futile, that the decisions have already been made, and there will be no ground moving legislation coming out of this.

Other delegations that I have run into are Thailand, and Denmark. Tomorrow I’ll be meeting with the USA delegation, via their breifing session. Overall, I’ve found that these delegates are reserved at first, and thaw only after a bit of conversation.

The Future

Who are the negotiators of the future? What would if the youth of today were the negotiators of the future? Would we have a progressive leadership – OUR leadership, that we wish for today? Growing from meddlesome and insistent youth would we mature into kind, caring, and responsible “grown-ups”? Or would we also, like those before us, forget our vision of a beautiful, equitable future, and quarrel and block the future of our own children’s generation?

Our future is in the hands of the negotiators, but it’s up to us to tell them what we want it to look like! And it is the responsibility of each and every one of us to raise our words and our actions in building a future that is sustainable, equitable, with Climate Justice for All.

It is truly inspiring to see the hundreds of youth conglomerate from across the world trying their best to understand each other’s perspectives and arrive at a common solution towards climate change, as one person rightly pointed out ‘If climate change had not happened so many beautiful people (youth from almost every country of the world!) might have never come together’. And yet there is unity in the diversity. The diversity is maintained the most by groups routed to the ground and people proud of their cultural heritages. Many of the Global South youth delegates turned up with flags and in traditional costumes celebrating their cultures!, somehow I feel that itself is a statement to say that we want a solution which is global but routed in the local and ensuring principles of inter –national justice and equality. Some of the African youth and, their connections with the Earth and ecosystems has been truly touching.

On the second day of COY, once again we had a very inspiring speaker, the Greenpeace Executive Director- Kumi Naidoo, who told us about the story of how one his childhood friends who had the deepest impact on his life, once asked him: ‘What do you think could be the biggest contribution you could make for humanity’ and he said- ‘Give your life for it’ but his friend said ‘That is wrong, my friend, the correct answer should be ‘To give the rest of your life!’. Solutions to climate change don’t stop at this Conference and all of us are well aware of that, however from this time forth many youth have pledged to work towards lasting and innovative solutions.

What needs however to be true to (in our finding solutions) is to remember the people we represent- the children, the youth, the underprivileged from many villages, coastal, drought prone etc areas, who fight with the multifarious impacts of climate change every day when they have to traverse longer distances to find water and sacrifice meals so that CO2 emitters enjoy more luxuries. Would we be able to impact their lives, will their stories be any better tomorrow, will we be able to make life any better for them!

It is not that these things have not been thought of by the older generation, but as one wise man rightly pointed out ‘sometimes experience contaminates us’. This is why Mr. Naidoo appealed to the youth by saying : ‘We need your voice, We need your energy and We need your leadership!’

‘The young do not know enough to be prudent, and therefore they attempt the impossible — and achieve it, generation after generation’ - Pearl S. Buck

youth at coy

And indeed, if there ever was a time for action on climate change, now is that time. Climate change impacts are growing in number and severity day by day in every region of the world. In addition, new threats to our national security, economic stability, resource availability and the very ecosystems that sustain us are emerging. There is no more time to wait for action.

These global climate negotiations are one of the most important and complex political negotiations to have taken place in humanity’s long and winding history. Indeed, this meeting in Copenhagen alone has brought together 25,000 attendees from every corner of the earth. They will be joined by an astonishing 110 heads of state and government next week. The sheer size and level of this meeting signifies its importance and the potential it brings.

So, as the first in a series of dispatches from Copenhagen, I, along with my fellow delegates, am taking the opportunity today to ask the question: What do I really want to see from this historic meeting? What took me by surprise was the difficulty I experienced in answering this question, as I found myself met by the conflict of so-called “political reality” and “personal aspiration.”

Despite a more collaborative political dynamic on climate change than there has ever been, we are still very far from achieving the kind of ambitious, equitable, and binding deal that our global society needs to see in Copenhagen. Yet time is running out. The challenges of domestic politics and the barriers they represent loom large in the negotiating arena, but in truth, what kind of “political reality checks” will we continue to impose on our survival that are stronger than the ecological, economic and social stability of our world?

In reality, anything is possible and the only true limit to change is our ability to imagine it and truly wish to make it happen. Perhaps that is aspiration, but we have the capacity as a global community to achieve the change we wish to see; if only we can work together, and make commitments in line with science and with our past and future responsibilities and capabilities.

With this in mind, I choose to hope that here in Copenhagen, at this historic meeting, we will see aspiration win out over “political reality.” That we will see true political leadership, meaningful acceptance of responsibility from all nations and true change-making politics to give us the strong, global deal on climate change that the world needs.

In the words of Yvo de Boer at the opening conference plenary, “After two years negotiating Copenhagen, the time has come to deliver. Copenhagen will only be successful if it delivers solid action that will begin the day Copenhagen ends. I urge you to…deliver [and] reach for success.”

Or, as Lars Lokke Rasmussen, Denmark’s Prime Minister said, “Let us not focus on what divides us, but on what brings us together. We can change and we have to change.” The time is now.

Cross-posted from Dateline: Copenhagen, Worldwatch Institute

After the announcements that Environmental Minister Jai Ram Ramesh has made in the parliament on Thursday, I wanted to respect the positive direction by adorning a “bindi” (a traditional Indian accessory you stick on your forehead between your eyes), eagerly looking forward to greater leadership from India at the COP15 negotiations.

A bindi is a symbol of pride, of commitment to one’s husband, but in my case, commitment to a proactive leadership by India and a fair, ambitious and binding deal at Copenhagen.

What have they done right?

From all the stances, post the recent announcements from the US, China, Brazil et. al, India seems to have projected a serious concern backed by appropriate actions and keeping all stakeholders in the process very very happy.

1.Opening the debate to the parliament floor

Although the US has not taken to acceptable commitments, it was positive to see that all the US Congress members key to pushing the Waxmen-Markey bill are aware of the nitty gritty details about climate change and the negotiations. For too long, climate change was never debated on the parliament floor back in India.

Jai ram Ramesh, however, has succesfully managed to bring the debate to the parliament floor on Thursday. It was amazing to see 18 MPs speak about climate change issues and concerns, including some young MPs like Sandeep Dikshit, Jyoti Mirdha, Supriya Sule, and Jayant Chowdhry. Dr. PD Rai spoke on north-eastern states getting additonal incentives for protecting the biodiversity, especially the forest cover that also acts as a big carbon sink.

2. On the provisional targets

India has proposed it would reduce its carbon emissions intensity by 20-25 per cent of 2005 levels by 2020, but that the reduction would be made voluntarily rather than as part of any legally binding international agreement to combat global warming.

Despite no additional financing and technology transfer coming in we have managed to come up with these carbon intensity targets which sounds great for a country with such high levels of poverty as ours. This really puts developed countries to shame, considering they aren’t coming up with acceptable emission cuts themselves.

Ramesh said India’s cuts are based on a mid-term appraisal by India’s Planning Commssion review in the country’s 11th 5-year plan. On the basis of past performance – between 1990 and 2005, when India’s emissions intensity declined by 17.6 percent – the Planning Commission concluded that we can have a 20-25% reduction in emissions intensity between 2005 and 2020.

Quote from Jai(mes) Bond- “We are not doing the world a favour,” he said. “Forget Copenhagen. Forget the US. Our future as a society depends on how we respond to the climate change challenge.”

3. On domestic standards

These include mandating fuel efficiency standards for all vehicles by December 2011, legislating an energy-efficient building code and ensuring that half of all new coal-fired power generation uses clean coal technology and regularly report to the Parliament on the status of the forests.

4. On International Scrutiny – MRV (measurable, reportable, verifiable)
India could “modulate” its rejection of the international scrutiny of domestic mitigation efforts, which are not supported by international finance or technology.

Unlike earlier, this is a positive direction to make the deal breaker a deal maker situation

5. Shift to a low carbon pathway

He also mentioned that the 12th Five Year Plan (2012-17) is going be based on ‘low carbon strategy’, and the next 2 years will be the transitional years. Considering this years budget wasn’t green and giving tax holidays to oil and oil derived products producing industries, I would like to see how they shift this in the coming years.

6. Non-negotiables for Copenhagen- the dark RED lines

India will not accept a legally-binding emissions reductions cut. Speaking of “some attempt by some countries to get developing countries to announce when they will peak …” Jai Ram Ramesh said: “We will not accept an agreement that will ask for a peaking year for India.”

8. Intergenerational Equity

Considering that the average age of negotiators was around 60 years it’s a welcome surprise that there will be younger people on the team. Finally, people closer to my age! The minister mentioned that India’s delegation to CoP is ‘Generational’ (ie. cuts across generations) to include 2 school children and 2 college students + 3 MPs nominated from lok sabha + 2 from Rajya Sabha + 5 other MPs.

What will it take to make me wear a sari at the COP? Read: How can India do still better?

Carry on with its forward leadership but reflect more closely on the following factors :

1. Consider that our emissions will peak in the near future; look at the rate our economy is growing and accept that India will eventually need to take binding emission cuts. It is vital for us not to repeat the mistakes of the developed world.

2. If we talk about equity on an international scale, then we must consider equity within our own country.

After all, what percentage of people actually emit the most? And how many emissions are being made by the 70% of the population living in rural areas?

3. India could do better by GETTING THE PRIME MINISTER TO COPENHAGEN!

4. How adequately are the youth selected in the official delegation representing the Youth climate Movement?

Are they well aware of the international youth council and their role? How effective will they be in the delegation?

I hope they are not brought on the delegation for a mere formality as token members and that rather their voices and concerns are actually considered by the government–after all, they are negotiating for their own future.

Looking forward to great 2 weeks in Copenhagen, brilliant weather, and wearing a sari.

After months of speculation marked by rumors, leaks, and high-level approvals, India formally launched its national solar mission, known as “Solar India,” last week. The move confirms the country’s intention to assume a global leadership role on solar energy and to stake out a low-carbon development path at home.

The policy confirms India’s much-touted plans to install 20,000 megawatts (MW) of solar power over the next 12 years – a 6,666-fold leap from the current 3 MW of installed capacity, and the equivalent of 13 percent of India’s total installed power generation capacity. The supply would be met with solar thermal technologies that convert the sun’s light to heat as well as solar photovoltaic (PV) systems that convert sunlight to electricity, for use in both grid-connected applications and off-grid applications such as solar water heaters and solar lanterns.

Speaking at the launch of Solar India in Delhi, India’s Minister of New and Renewable Energy, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, described the mission as a “historic and transformational initiative.” He outlined his country’s wish to pursue solar energy as a means to support “India’s long term energy security as well as its ecological security.”

Ambitious plans for scale-up

Solar India’s primary aim is to create an enabling policy environment for rapid diffusion of solar technology across the country. According to the final policy document, the mission hopes to “attract industry and project developers to invest in research, domestic manufacturing, and development of solar power generation and thus create the critical mass for a domestic solar industry.”

Such a scale-up would involve the use of wide-ranging mechanisms, such as “Renewable Purchase Obligations” that would mandate power providers in each state to purchase a certain share of their electricity supply as solar energy. Other expected measures include time-bound subsidies, which would provide a fixed, “attractive,” and “predictable” tariff for solar energy; research and development to support new innovations and partnerships; and capacity building that would aim to “develop and strengthen Indian skills and enhance indigenous content,” Abdullah said.

The mission also hopes to bring down the cost of solar energy to be on par with “conventional” grid power by 2022 and with coal-based thermal power, currently the cheapest energy source, by 2030 – enabling a rapid scale-up of solar technologies.

The role of international support

The mission states that although India aims to install 3,000 MW of solar by 2017, this capacity could reach 10,000 MW or more by that date with the support of “enhanced and enabled” international financing and technology.

“If funds are made available, in the form of either grants or low cost loans, the costs of generation would be reduced,” an official with the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy said, speaking anonymously.” It would definitely enable us to expand solar capacity faster.”

The launch of the Solar India plan came at a highly strategic moment, one day before Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh arrived in Washington, D.C., to meet U.S. President Barack Obama. The two leaders discussed climate change and established a new green partnership ahead of next month’s international climate talks in Copenhagen, Denmark.

India has been highly vocal about the need for international support to enhance its climate change efforts.

Singh clarified recently that India has “not made [the solar plan's] implementation conditional upon obtaining international support.” However, “we can certainly do more if there is a supportive global regime,” he noted at last weekend’s Commonwealth Summit in Trinidad and Tobago.

The solar mission’s expected cost has not been made publicly available. A draft version leaked earlier this year included an estimate of $20 billion.

Siddharth Pathak, a climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace India, is concerned that this financial omission may hinder the flow of international support for the mission during and beyond the United Nations climate summit this December.

“If India wanted to do the mission in part with international finance, they should [have] clearly earmark[ed] what India is willing to do on its own, and what is India asking to be internationally financed,” Pathak said. “If India is installing through its own money – say, 10 gigawatts by 2013 – then the international community, by fulfilling its obligations under the negotiations, should ensure that they provide the finance [and technology] so that India can do 20 gigawatts by 2013,” he said.

Pathak also observed that the absence of a specific estimate for avoided carbon emissions as a result of the solar mission’s implementation weakened what could have been a “brilliant” document.

Strengthening bilateral relationships

Outside of the global climate change negotiations, India has been increasingly strengthening its bilateral relationships with other large nations in the area of climate-related support.

India and China recently established an agreement “to strengthen their exchange of views and cooperation on mitigation policies, programs, projects, technology development and demonstration relating to greenhouse gas emission reduction,” including renewable energy.

And at the European Union-India Summit in early November, delegates called for “early implementation of…cooperation [efforts] in solar energy” between the EU and India to be developed “expediously.”

Peter Luff, CEO of Action for a Global Climate Community, a group seeking to enhance the EU-India dialogue on climate, observed that the solar mission’s call for greater international collaboration on technology, research, and finance could be met through “enhanced cooperation between the EU and India that could attract the necessary level of private finance” as well as through “joint research and development leading to programmatic cooperation.”

India’s Ministry of New and Renewable Energy is also implementing bilateral solar projects with Japan and Australia under the Asia-Pacific Partnership Programme. Meanwhile, the establishment of the U.S.-India green partnership last week confirmed that collaboration on solar energy would be a significant dimension of that effort.

Cross-posted from Eye on Earth, Worldwatch Institute

WHY VOTE EARTH?

Put simply, because our future depends on it! It only takes a few minutes to vote, but it could help protect our planet forever. It’s your chance to tell world leaders what kind of deal you want them to make at the climate summit in Copenhagen.

Copenhagen: a new direction

World leaders are set to discuss new ways to deal with climate change at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, 7-18 December 2009. This new deal will replace the Kyoto Protocol and set new standards for reducing harmful emissions and global warming.

Copenhagen is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to point our planet in a new direction. But if we don’t urge world leaders to make things right now, it could all go very wrong for the future. Four possible outcomes from the talks could be:

Foundation: leaders agree on ways to strengthen targets over the next five years, but it’s only a slight improvement on current commitments.

Greenwash: leaders pledge to review current arrangements and call it a success, but nothing really changes.

Collapse: no agreement is reached and the problem is deferred indefinitely.

Breakthrough: an agreement is reached with ambitious reduction targets to limit global warming to 2 degrees – the level scientists say will prevent dangerous climate change.
The more votes for Earth we get, the stronger our mandate will be to influence a ‘breakthrough’ result. It’s the only outcome that will secure the long term sustainability for our environment and global economy.

The future can be bright

New economic modelling indicates the world has just five years to initiate a low carbon industrial revolution before runaway climate change becomes almost inevitable. But it can be done, and the long term benefits will be enormous.

So now’s the time to give world leaders the mandate they need to make the right climate deal. It’s time to Vote Earth!

The exercise was organized by Indian Youth Climate Network (IYCN) in collaboration with the Lakes and Water Ways Development here to mark Oct. 24 as the International Day for Climate Action around the globe.

It was aimed at urging world leaders to support a clear solution to the climate change by reducing the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) emission in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million.

The 350 figure is the maximum level that is considered a safe upper limit.

“The exercise was aimed to making people aware of the climate crisis and need to protect environment. The present rate of CO2 in the atmosphere is 387 parts per million that we want to bring down below 350,” said Owaise Raheem, regional project director of IYCN.

More than 4227 simultaneous events are being organized across 170 countries in this regard.

The activities have been planned in the run-up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 15) starting from Dec. 7 in Copenhagen.

We’ve heard a lot in recent months about India’s international positioning on climate change, but what is opinion like at home? Is everyone in agreement with the formal government position? And what is the key to stronger Indian engagement with the international climate regime? A  working paper [PDF] on this subject was recently released by Navroz Dubash, a Senior Fellow at India’s Centre for Policy Research. It looks not only at the state of opinion within India’s government, corporations and civil society on how India should respond to the climate challenge, but also proffers that what is most needed in advance of the negotiations in Copenhagen is to build trust.

Dubash suggests that there is broad domestic agreement in India on three key points. Firstly, that India is being unfairly labelled a major emitter by the international community, secondly, that India has an ongoing and considerable development challenge, and thirdly, that India is moving in the right direction climate change mitigation is concerned. ”Climate diplomats from other countries would do well to recognize this reality,” says Dubash.

However, he also argues that opinion is far more divided at home around how India should respond to the climate challenge, with three major streams of opinion characterizing the debate. He describes as Growth First Stonewallers those who, frequently sceptical of the science, believe that pressures to respond to climate change are primarily a strategy employed by industrialized nations to keep emerging economies such as India and China at bay. As such, these pressures are a threat to Indian interests. Stonewallers, according to Dubash, see addressing climate change as less important than India’s economic development.

The second are Progressive Realists. These Realists recognise that climate change poses a significant threat to India, but are deeply skeptical of the international process as a fair or effective way to address the climate problem. Seeing pressure on developing countries primarily as an attempt by industrialized countries to shift the burden of action away from their shores, they are resigned to focus on domestic climate change action through clean development efforts resulting in climate ”co-benefits,” while at the same time avoiding the ”obligations and constraints of an international regime.” Dubash describes this as India’s increasingly predominant position, with a shift from its former Stonewaller center of gravity.

Finally, Dubash highlights a ”small but increasingly vocal group” of Progressive Internationalists. Although in agreement with India’s Realists that the rich world is using India as an excuse for inaction and that equity must be paramount within any global climate change agreement, these Internationalists are of the opinion that India should work with, not separately from the global policy regime, aligning its efforts at home to facilitate and condition a stronger global deal. They argue, that a weak global climate deal resulting in weak action on climate change will result in greater inequities for the poor in the future, who will be the first to suffer the impacts of climate change and who are primarily located in developing countries. These Internationalists, describes Dubash, are in the distinct minority and perceived by most in India as naïve. Fears abound that a more concerted engagement from India with the international regime will result in greater constraints on India but little change in global dynamics and commitments.

Recent political developments in Bangkok have done little to allay these fears, with reports of a new proposal from some industrialised nations to scrap the Kyoto Protocol. Dubash argues that a split between India’s progressive thinkers driven by different opinions on the international climate regime is weakening India’s ability to respond to climate change. To bring these groups together, a far more progressive approach to the international negotiations will be required from all countries with trust building and signals of good faith an essential factor. ”A renewed Indian climate politics…will require far stronger signals of good faith from the international community, and industrialized countries in particular,” says Dubash in his paper, going on to elaborate what this would imply.

For a full recount of this insightful overview, please see the full  paper.

While the Indian government continues to emphasize poverty alleviation and economic development as the country’s highest priorities, recent stances on domestic emission reductions indicate that India is taking considerable steps to encourage more constructive global climate talks.

India joins a growing contingent of developing countries that “are making very significant efforts to show what they are doing to address climate change and indicate what more they are willing to do,” according to U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer.

Until recently, India had repeatedly rejected calls to quantify its targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions on the grounds that this would jeopardize national poverty alleviation goals.

“India cannot and will not take emission reduction targets because poverty eradication and social and economic development are first and over-riding priorities,” Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said in June.

But two weeks ago, in a surprising reversal, India agreed to quantify its efforts to mitigate climate change. Ramesh said India would reduce emissions by “a broadly indicative number,” although the reductions would still not be bound by international law.

At the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate in Italy in July, India joined 16 other countries in declaring that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels should not exceed 2 degrees Celsius. This goal remains somewhat controversial, however, as there is still no clear agreement on how countries will share the burden for reducing global emissions.

At the subsequent Major Economies Forum in Washington, D.C., this September, India proposed that it could submit more detailed and regular information to the international community on its domestic climate change efforts as a step toward greater transparency.

All countries that are party to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are required to submit periodic “national communications” that report on their carbon emissions and climate mitigation activities. But India, like other developing countries, has not had to submit these reports as regularly or in as much detail as industrialized countries, especially for those actions that are not internationally funded.

“We are prepared to…incorporate [self-funded actions on climate change] in our national communication [and]…to consider making the national communication more detailed and more regular,” said Shyam Saran, India’s Special Envoy on Climate Change, speaking to Worldwatch. But, he said, all parties to the UNFCCC would need to agree to such changes.

These recent overtures from India’s government are a sign of the country’s growing investment in the success of the Copenhagen climate negotiations in December, Ramesh said.

“The single most important message we need to give the world is that we are proactive, constructive, [and] we want a fair and equitable agreement in Copenhagen,” he told the Indian Express.

Strengthening efforts at home

India’s investment in climate change appears to be ramping up domestically as well.

Last month, the Ministry of Environment and Forests released a report listing 20 initiatives that the country is undertaking to address climate change at home. These steps come as part of India’s larger National Action Plan on Climate Change.

The report mentions reforestation as a priority on India’s environmental agenda. A major drive is under way nationwide to add 0.8 million hectares of forest per year, coupled with efforts to improve forest management, conservation, and regeneration and to boost local capacity and job creation for some of India’s poorest communities.

These initiatives will help offset 11 percent of India’s annual emissions, according to the Ministry report.

The report also touts the government’s recent approval of two of the eight “missions” that comprise the National Action Plan on Climate Change: the Solar Mission and the Mission for Enhanced Energy Efficiency.

The Solar Mission sets a target to install 20 gigawatts (GW) of solar capacity by 2020 and 200 GW by 2050. It is the most ambitious solar plan that any country has put forward so far.

The Mission for Enhanced Energy Efficiency contains initiatives designed to improve the efficiency of energy use across sectors. The government has said the program will include a series of mandated efficiency standards for vehicles, buildings, and appliances; a market-based mechanism to trade energy-efficiency certificates; and other mechanisms to finance efficiency efforts, such as tax exemptions and insurance funds.

The Ministry has also floated a proposal to create a National Environmental Protection Authority that would monitor and evaluate the implementation of environmental efforts in India. The proposal comes as part of a new drive from the Ministry to improve its “accountability and transparency,” as outlined in a recent video that asks viewers to provide feedback on Ministry activities.

India firm on equity concerns

Despite its increasingly proactive engagement on climate issues, India has not waivered from its position that equity concerns must underlie the international climate negotiations. The government insists that, despite a common goal of global climate stabilization, each country has a different responsibility to address the problem.

“The major responsibility for bringing about [climate change] is that of the developed countries, and…they should carry out credible action in order to control emissions,” said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at a press conference following the recent G20 Summit in Pittsburgh, Pennsyslvania.

Topping India’s agenda have been appeals for more ambitious emissions cuts from industrialized countries as well as larger commitments to provide financial and technical support to the developing world.

“Nearly 200 million [Indians] live on less than $1 a day and nearly 500 million do not have access to modern sources of energy,” said External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna at a U.N. roundtable event in New York in September.

At the meeting, Krishna called on industrialized countries to cut their carbon emissions “at least 40 percent by 2020″ from 1990 levels and asked them to consider changes in lifestyle patterns to achieve this shift.

“We cannot get away from the fundamental fact that unsustainable lifestyles and patterns of production and consumption in the developed world have caused climate change. This cannot continue,” he said.

Krishna emphasized the importance of focusing on climate change adaptation as well as mitigation. “Developing countries must be supported financially, technologically, and with capacity-building resources so that they can cope with the immense challenges of adaptation,” he said in a statement to the U.N. General Assembly.

Cross-Posted from Worldwatch Institute, Eye on Earth, www.worldwatch.org