TakingITGlobal - Panorama - The slogan at...

Published on: Dec 3, 2009

Topic:

Type: Opinions

https://www.tigweb.org/express/panorama/article.html?ContentID=26929

France is very eager to impose a Carbon tax and also wants it as a punishment for the nations disregarding climate change by insisting that the EU imposes a tax on imports from countries like India. This makes energy sources expensive. We, representing the poor countries of G77, should oppose this without fear because if EU can survive without our exports, we also can survive without their imports. We should understand that if we do not sell our goods on their unfair terms, the availability of such goods in the EU will come down and then you can imagine their discomfort over that. Their governments will be forced to abandon this bluff with which they want to make poor countries surrender to their unfair solutions for climate change.

Denmark wants to present a draft at Copenhagen which would force the nations to cap their emissions at the peaking level in the year of 2025. These developed nations are so sure that these poor G77 nations’ peaking level emissions in a period of 15 years will be much lower than the developed world’s emissions. To respond to this, Bismac is presenting our own draft at Copenhagen. We also should state that if our draft is not accepted, we will stop all our voluntary efforts in clean alternative energy and increase our peaking at the specified year of 2025. We also should stress that the emissions should be calculated on the basis of the ton per person formula rather than on a nation by nation basis. This is because then climate change could be viewed in the perspective of the human race. Climate does not have any boundary or nationhood.

We should remember that this clean energy business will give trillions of dollars to the developed nations, the abusers of climate, either in the form of technology or equipment. We also should remember that we are accustomed to the vagaries of nature and poverty and thus are more able to tolerate climate change. We should make it clear to them that we are not as bothered as them about climate change. I will give an example here; the visitors from the rich countries drink only mineral water in India and if they drink ordinary water, they will immediately fall sick either by diarrhea or respiratory infections. 95% of persons in India drink the same ordinary drinking water, but our bodies are strong enough not to fall sick. So we should call these people’s bluff and stick to our draft. The developed world has to bend because they feel that their lives are more valuable and indispensable.

Apart from the things included in our Bismac draft, I believe that the following should be the way we should present our demands at Copenhagen, where our slogan should be: “Pay for emissions!”

America and other developed countries must practice emission control to the spirit of every letter. America wants to reduce its emissions to 4 tons per person by 2050. If they want to talk with any country about emissions and reductions, they have to take the initiative in bringing all the countries to the table. The solution should be like this:

1) Emissions per person are to be limited to five tons per person in all the countries.
2) A fund under the control of the UN should be formed.
3) A cost factor should be decided for amounts of emission exceeding the limit allowed: “X” dollars per ton per person.
4) This should be paid to the account of carbon credits, thus increasing the value of carbon credits. It would work as an initiative in support of clean energy, afforestation (a big employment generator) and conservation (by optimal utilization and less wastage).

It should be the UN’s responsibility to survey the world for the production of clean energy like solar and hydropower, and to build projects of this nature across the world, using the money collected from the offending nations (those that emit huge emissions after the emission cap has been fixed at 5 tons per person per year. Copenhagen should make possible negotiation for financial and technological aids from developed countries and should allow multilateral institutions to build these solar-, wind- and hydropower projects in any country where sunlight, wind and water are available in plenty. This power should be dedicated to local usage, thereby reducing the use of fossil fuels for energy.

This reduction of dependence on fossil fuels any where in the world would benefit the whole world, solving the problem of the unaffordability of expensive clean energy by poor nations. India, China and other G77 countries should take the lead and pressurise the offending nations to pay a price for emissions beyond the internationally enforced cap (which should not be dictated by the US and other rich countries- the main culprits). Otherwise, the West will try to use its diplomatic means- including sweet cajoling and harsh threats- to make the world accept caps that suit their lifestyles.

« return.



by Dr.N.Radha krishna
Published on: Dec 3, 2009
Topic:
Type: Opinions
https://www.tigweb.org/express/panorama/article.html?ContentID=26929


France is very eager to impose a Carbon tax and also wants it as a punishment for the nations disregarding climate change by insisting that the EU imposes a tax on imports from countries like India. This makes energy sources expensive. We, representing the poor countries of G77, should oppose this without fear because if EU can survive without our exports, we also can survive without their imports. We should understand that if we do not sell our goods on their unfair terms, the availability of such goods in the EU will come down and then you can imagine their discomfort over that. Their governments will be forced to abandon this bluff with which they want to make poor countries surrender to their unfair solutions for climate change. Denmark wants to present a draft at Copenhagen which would force the nations to cap their emissions at the peaking level in the year of 2025. These developed nations are so sure that these poor G77 nations’ peaking level emissions in a period of 15 years will be much lower than the developed world’s emissions. To respond to this, Bismac is presenting our own draft at Copenhagen. We also should state that if our draft is not accepted, we will stop all our voluntary efforts in clean alternative energy and increase our peaking at the specified year of 2025. We also should stress that the emissions should be calculated on the basis of the ton per person formula rather than on a nation by nation basis. This is because then climate change could be viewed in the perspective of the human race. Climate does not have any boundary or nationhood. We should remember that this clean energy business will give trillions of dollars to the developed nations, the abusers of climate, either in the form of technology or equipment. We also should remember that we are accustomed to the vagaries of nature and poverty and thus are more able to tolerate climate change. We should make it clear to them that we are not as bothered as them about climate change. I will give an example here; the visitors from the rich countries drink only mineral water in India and if they drink ordinary water, they will immediately fall sick either by diarrhea or respiratory infections. 95% of persons in India drink the same ordinary drinking water, but our bodies are strong enough not to fall sick. So we should call these people’s bluff and stick to our draft. The developed world has to bend because they feel that their lives are more valuable and indispensable. Apart from the things included in our Bismac draft, I believe that the following should be the way we should present our demands at Copenhagen, where our slogan should be: “Pay for emissions!” America and other developed countries must practice emission control to the spirit of every letter. America wants to reduce its emissions to 4 tons per person by 2050. If they want to talk with any country about emissions and reductions, they have to take the initiative in bringing all the countries to the table. The solution should be like this: 1) Emissions per person are to be limited to five tons per person in all the countries. 2) A fund under the control of the UN should be formed. 3) A cost factor should be decided for amounts of emission exceeding the limit allowed: “X” dollars per ton per person. 4) This should be paid to the account of carbon credits, thus increasing the value of carbon credits. It would work as an initiative in support of clean energy, afforestation (a big employment generator) and conservation (by optimal utilization and less wastage). It should be the UN’s responsibility to survey the world for the production of clean energy like solar and hydropower, and to build projects of this nature across the world, using the money collected from the offending nations (those that emit huge emissions after the emission cap has been fixed at 5 tons per person per year. Copenhagen should make possible negotiation for financial and technological aids from developed countries and should allow multilateral institutions to build these solar-, wind- and hydropower projects in any country where sunlight, wind and water are available in plenty. This power should be dedicated to local usage, thereby reducing the use of fossil fuels for energy. This reduction of dependence on fossil fuels any where in the world would benefit the whole world, solving the problem of the unaffordability of expensive clean energy by poor nations. India, China and other G77 countries should take the lead and pressurise the offending nations to pay a price for emissions beyond the internationally enforced cap (which should not be dictated by the US and other rich countries- the main culprits). Otherwise, the West will try to use its diplomatic means- including sweet cajoling and harsh threats- to make the world accept caps that suit their lifestyles. « return.