The Paris Agreement is revolutionary in the sense that it comes at the end of a long-drawn process of bringing around those countries which had for long rejected the consequences of unfettered greenhouse gas emissions, and which had only grudgingly recognised that there is a need to face up to the consequences of climate change.
Paris has witnessed the culmination in the resolve on the part of all countries — the rich and the poor, the developed and the developing, the big and the small — that it is time to act to prevent climate disaster on a global scale.
http://tinychat.com/buyjybacklinks
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, French Foreign Affairs Minister Laurent Fabius, President-designate of COP21, and French President Francois Hollande applaud during the final plenary session at the World Climate Change Conference 2015 (COP21) at Le Bourget, near Paris, France, December 12, 2015. Reuters
Representatives of the 196 governments had to struggle through a nerve-wracking negotiation marathon to arrive at an acceptable wording of the agreement. The final draft which was adopted on Saturday was quite sanitised compared to the earlier versions where the language, which was kept hanging in the brackets pinpointed the responsibility of the developed countries in bringing the world to the brink of a climate disaster had all been elided. What remained was the tame acceptance that different countries will contribute according to their capacity to fight the threat posed by climate change.
There was much talk about equity in the run-up to the final agreement, but there was no trace of it in the text. The only consolation for the small, poor and undeveloped countries was that there is a promise that there would be financial assistance in adapting to the technologies to create a green future. The amount that has been initially allotted for the purpose is US$100 billion, which is nothing compared to the estimated US$77 trillion global economy.
The agreement, however, delineates plenty of bureaucratic mechanisms in the form of ad hoc working groups, technical assessment committees, financial assistance bodies, impact assessment bodies, periodic review meetings to help bring about the needed changes in the management of carbon emissions.
What is available now is an institutional architecture to deal with all aspects of climate change which would involve decision-makers from all countries. A widely-networked climate change organisation has emerged, which appears to be a parallel to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). While the working of the WTO seems to be based on recognisable rules, there seem to be none in place with regard to the working of the various committees, except the fact that they would all function under the aegis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC).
The role of India at the Paris climate summit is really nothing to write home about. The text of the agreement has avoided all the prickly wording which would have placed on record that it was the industrial West that has created the climate mess which the rest of the world now has to clear up.
There was no doubt that India was a main player along with China at the negotiating table. But there is not much evidence to show that India did anything more than protect its own interests. It did not really stand up for the developing countries. India seems to be happy that it does not have to make any drastic adjustment and it does not have to change its energy consumption patterns in the near future. Its preponderant dependence on coal and oil can continue for a decade and more.
http://n4g.com/user/home/backlinkssi
The question is about the way forward. It appears that there will be real changes in the economy because for the first time global majors in the private sector are keen to rework the consumption patterns that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
It is the sympathetic and positive response of global business towards the issue of climate change that is going to make the big difference in the future.
Paris has witnessed the culmination in the resolve on the part of all countries — the rich and the poor, the developed and the developing, the big and the small — that it is time to act to prevent climate disaster on a global scale.
http://tinychat.com/buyjybacklinks
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, French Foreign Affairs Minister Laurent Fabius, President-designate of COP21, and French President Francois Hollande applaud during the final plenary session at the World Climate Change Conference 2015 (COP21) at Le Bourget, near Paris, France, December 12, 2015. Reuters
Representatives of the 196 governments had to struggle through a nerve-wracking negotiation marathon to arrive at an acceptable wording of the agreement. The final draft which was adopted on Saturday was quite sanitised compared to the earlier versions where the language, which was kept hanging in the brackets pinpointed the responsibility of the developed countries in bringing the world to the brink of a climate disaster had all been elided. What remained was the tame acceptance that different countries will contribute according to their capacity to fight the threat posed by climate change.
There was much talk about equity in the run-up to the final agreement, but there was no trace of it in the text. The only consolation for the small, poor and undeveloped countries was that there is a promise that there would be financial assistance in adapting to the technologies to create a green future. The amount that has been initially allotted for the purpose is US$100 billion, which is nothing compared to the estimated US$77 trillion global economy.
The agreement, however, delineates plenty of bureaucratic mechanisms in the form of ad hoc working groups, technical assessment committees, financial assistance bodies, impact assessment bodies, periodic review meetings to help bring about the needed changes in the management of carbon emissions.
What is available now is an institutional architecture to deal with all aspects of climate change which would involve decision-makers from all countries. A widely-networked climate change organisation has emerged, which appears to be a parallel to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). While the working of the WTO seems to be based on recognisable rules, there seem to be none in place with regard to the working of the various committees, except the fact that they would all function under the aegis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC).
The role of India at the Paris climate summit is really nothing to write home about. The text of the agreement has avoided all the prickly wording which would have placed on record that it was the industrial West that has created the climate mess which the rest of the world now has to clear up.
There was no doubt that India was a main player along with China at the negotiating table. But there is not much evidence to show that India did anything more than protect its own interests. It did not really stand up for the developing countries. India seems to be happy that it does not have to make any drastic adjustment and it does not have to change its energy consumption patterns in the near future. Its preponderant dependence on coal and oil can continue for a decade and more.
http://n4g.com/user/home/backlinkssi
The question is about the way forward. It appears that there will be real changes in the economy because for the first time global majors in the private sector are keen to rework the consumption patterns that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
It is the sympathetic and positive response of global business towards the issue of climate change that is going to make the big difference in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment