Making a big deal out of a bad deal

By: Kaavya Nag

Nations of the world had a small window of opportunity to zero-in on a deal that would begin taking serious steps towards preventing dangerous climate change. Admittedly, the decisions would not have been easy to take, nor to follow through. But certainly, taking those hard decisions would have been the right thing to do.


Never before has there been such large-scale political willingness to act on climate change. And thanks to the Danish Presidency, never before had 112 heads of state come to a climate conference to lock-in some serious ambition. But that opportunity was lost because leaders managed to cook the climate soup and evaporate all ambition.


If only you peruse the Copenhagen Accord, you will see the glaring absence of two things crucial to a strong deal – numbers and strong legal terms.

Copenhagen Accord: What it says and [doesn't say]

Deep cuts in global emissions to limit temperature rise to 2°C [Targets for emission cuts, mid-term and long-term global goals]
Peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible [Peaking year (even if only an ideal number)]
Enhanced action on adaptation (focus on small island states, Africa & least developed countries) [Mechanisms for action on adaptation]
Industrialised countries to implement (individually or jointly) economy-wide emission targets for 2020 [Details on who does how much, proportion of offsets, level of compulsion (legal or not) for targets and finances]
Developing countries - implement mitigation actions – communicated through National Communications every two years [For major economies no required deviation from BAU, details on national MRV procedures]
Scaled-up, new and additional financing and improved access to finance. Focus on mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer, capacity building and reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD). 30 billion USD fast-start financing for 2010-12, and 100 billion USD per year by 2020, particularly through a Green Climate Fund through a variety of sources.
Assess implementation of this Accord by 2015 [Proportion from public financing, who gives how much, how to convert pledges into action, mode of disbursing finance]


Leaders will defend the Accord saying it was the one saving grace of Copenhagen. It was the reason the talks did not collapse. The UN will try too. They are undoubtedly in serious denial. And if they think they will achieve much in Mexico City in 2010, they are sadly mistaken. That is, unless they give their negotiators some strong mandates for the planet and not their individual countries.

Yes, the Copenhagen Accord is a start. And yes, it can become something solid – once numbers and strong legal language come in, and once it becomes legally binding. But that is possible if and only if environmental integrity is preserved even in its most starved form. The Copenhagen Accord was simply not enough. It pales in comparison to what the science requires (it can in fact, almost assure us of a 3 degree Celsius world). It does not even ensure low-lying island states of their survival beyond 2050 or thereabouts, and at its core, it is by no means ethically sound - it cares two paisa for the planet.


The blame-game has begun, and while that is not a fruitful exercise, I am most tempted to ask all leaders who drafted that agreement – what were you thinking? 

India puts its weight behind climate deal

By: Kaavya Nag

It is possible that with all the numerous high-level international summits taking place this month, with Japan's new Hatoyama Initiative, and China's serious pledges on climate action, the international community missed out a rather important development in India changing its position on climate.

No, India hasn't yet made a complete turn around. It hasn't said it will agree to legally binding emission cuts on a deal that could be made at Copenhagen. But it has said what it has consciously refrained from even stating, in the past fifteen odd years.

The big shift is in India publicly stating that it agrees to pursue unilateral voluntary measures (no values on the table as yet) for 2020. In a move welcomed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, our environment minister Jairam Ramesh said 'we are now talking of voluntary unilateral implicitly targeted mitigation outcomes, not just actions with specific quantitative targets enshrined by law'. He also mentioned a 'per capita emission plus'.

Always one to shy away from legally binding targets, and one of the key players to push for an equitable treaty mirorring historical responsibility (necessary and key guidelines of climate negotiations today), India had probably gained the reputation of a deal-staller. Word has it that India's negotiators talk tough and have talked tough ever since the Kyoto Protocol came into action. India and China's refusal to change their negotiating position despite the need for a compromise, even after the EU's commitment to big emission cuts, has meant that Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan and the United States would not commit to any ambition. This was clearly visible in Australia and New Zealand's caveats to cut even 10 percent emissions from 2005 levels 'on the condition...'.

China in the mean while, has quietly become the world's largest emitter, but also has the largest installed wind energy capacity, solar photovoltaic manufacturing units, and has reportedly planted twice the number of trees as compared to the rest of the world. They have also calculated their current and projected emissions, say they will peak by 2030, and have committed to participating meaningfully at the climate negotiations.
Clearly, it is time for India to bite the bit. India is now angling for a change in international perception. But patience wears thin as talk (and no action) on our National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) and other domestic actions to cut emissions have remained on paper. The secretive draft of the solar mission suggests it will be released on 14th November 2009, everything else is 'proposed to be out by December'.Surely we are rather famous for Missions, Policies, Missions and Policies?

Only recently has the rhetoric changed, with the PM asking India to be a deal-maker, not a deal breaker.
The PM has spoken of a National Climate Change Mitigation Authority (NCCMA) - that will help realise implicit targets, and Jairam Ramesh has been speaking of a proposal to introduce an overarching central law that will guide the process.Opposition from the opposition is an drama we must expect once our ministers ready for the November session of Parliament. But as Jairam Ramesh says, we need to have everyone in the country on our side before we push for international commitments.

At this point in time, with a real climate crisis looming large (non-believers please see the IPCC report and anti-alarmists please read the papers), global collective cooperation is of utmost importance. This opportune moment will pass us by in a few years from now, and that would really make us 'the age of stupid'.