India rebuffs US carbon demands

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

By James Lamont in New Delhi, James Fontanella-Khan in Mumbai and Daniel Dombey in Washington

Published: July 19 2009 19:27 | Last updated: July 19 2009 19:27

India on Sunday night rebuffed an appeal by Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, to embrace a low-carbon future in which the two countries would work together to devise new ways of consuming and producing energy.

Mrs Clinton, on a five-day visit to the country, said that low-carbon emissions would not jeopardise India’s high economic growth rates and its goal of lifting millions of people out of poverty. She offered a technological partnership to secure the fast growing nation’s energy supplies and help boost the livelihoods of its farmers.

“There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have been among the lowest emissions per capita, face to actually reduce emissions,” Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister told Mrs Clinton. “And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours.”

In spite of the two countries’ battles in global trade talks and fears of India’s slipping down the US’s priority list, Mrs Clinton vowed that Washington would not do “anything” to stand in the way of the world’s largest democracy’s economic progress.

Speaking in Delhi on Sunday, Mrs Clinton said: “We believe that economic progress in India is in everyone’s interest and not just in the interest of Indians.”

“There is a way to eradicate poverty and develop sustainably that will lower significantly the carbon footprint of the energy that is produced and consumed to fuel that growth.”

Her comments come as global leaders try to agree a course of action to combat climate change and to break a deadlock over the Doha round of trade talks at the World Trade Organisation. New Delhi has sided with Beijing to oppose binding caps on its carbon emissions. They argue that developed nations should take responsibility for global warming. India has also clashed with the US over the terms of the global trade deal. The Indian government welcomed the US’s partnership but refused to agree to emissions caps.

Mrs Clinton is the most senior official of President Barack Obama’s administration to visit India since his election at the end of last year. The Indian government had close ties to the Republican administration of former president George W. Bush. Mr Bush helped end decades of isolation for India’s nuclear programme by striking a civil nuclear agreement between the two countries.

Some Indian officials express anxieties that a Democrat administration may turn to more protectionist measures in an economic downturn and also revisit earlier attempts during the presidency of Bill Clinton to find a settlement for Kashmir, disputed territory between India and Pakistan.

Mrs Clinton, who meets prime minister Manmohan Singh on Monday, has done her best to reflect a fast-improving relationship that promises to yield co-operation in defence, nuclear power and regional relations.

In a symbolic act of solidarity, she began her visit in Mumbai, staying at the Taj Hotel, one of the targets of the devastating terror attacks on India’s financial capital last November.

“The visit takes place amid a pervasive sense of unease in India that the Obama administration is less enthusiastic about the bilateral relationship than its predecessor,” said Seema Desai, an analyst at the Eurasia Group.

“There have been nagging concerns in India that the non-proliferation focus of the Obama administration as well as its desire for an intensified dialogue with China has reduced India's importance and leverage with the US.”

link

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

A split between rich and poor nations in the run-up to climate-change talks widened on Thursday.

India rejected key scientific findings on global warming, while the European Union called for more action by developing states on greenhouse gas emissions.

Jairam Ramesh, the Indian environment minister, accused the developed world of needlessly raising alarm over melting Himalayan glaciers.

He dismissed scientists’ predictions that Himalayan glaciers might disappear within 40 years as a result of global warming.

“We have to get out of the preconceived notion, which is based on western media, and invest our scientific research and other capacities to study Himalayan atmosphere,” he said.

“Science has its limitation. You cannot substitute the knowledge that has been gained by the people living in cold deserts through everyday experience.”

Mr Ramesh was also clear that India would not take on targets to cut its emissions, even though developed countries are asking only for curbs in the growth of emissions, rather than absolute cuts.

His stance was at wide variance with that of Andreas Carlgren, his Swedish counterpart.

...

India has taken the hardest line in the negotiations so far. Along with China, India refused at the meeting of the Group of Eight industrialised nations this month to sign up to a target of cutting global emissions by half by 2050. The countries were holding out to gain concessions from the west on financing.

The claims from Mr Ramesh that Western science was wrong on the question of melting Himalayan glaciers appeared to reinforce Delhi’s recalcitrant stance.

...

Mr Ramesh said the rate of retreat of glaciers in the Himalayas varied from a “couple of centimetres a year to a couple of metres”, but that this was a natural process that had taken place occurred over the centuries. Some were, in fact, growing, he said.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c2896b88-77bd-11...?nclick_check=1

[Peikko 1,575]

His political thinking is completely understandable of course.

[HAL 9000 96]

*beady eyes*

Once again... politics substitutes science.

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, to be fair, the developing nations are at a disadvantage domestically on this issue.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=209141

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

bump

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I would have titled it "India to Hillary: Drop dead, bich!"

[HAL 9000 96]

Unfortunately for the rest of us- its a repercussion based on population volume. Of course I suspect we can expect to see more of the two wrongs make it right crowd to justify their substitution of politics over science as well. And continue to justify that since they're doing it, so can we.

[mawilson 2,133]

Well, to be fair, the developing nations are at a disadvantage domestically on this issue.

Why?

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't think it's that simple for the politicians in these countries though. They have to have their domestic agenda at the forefront or they will be rejected by their own population. Remembering that India is a democratic nation - the politicians must be seen by their own populations to be trying to safeguard their domestic interests. It's a very fine line they must tread and in many ways the Western nations have to be very careful about how they proceed. It would be very easy for this issue to be picked up by more aggressive elements.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The prevailing sentiment in India is something like this... the west developed themselves and when we're getting started suddenly we have global warming? #######.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

I would have titled it "India to Hillary: Drop dead, bich!"

why does india hate women?

[mawilson 2,133]

The prevailing sentiment in India is something like this... the west developed themselves and when we're getting started suddenly we have global warming? #######.

Well the answer to that is... don't breed so much.

[HAL 9000 96]

The prevailing sentiment in India is something like this... the west developed themselves and when we're getting started suddenly we have global warming? #######.

It would be cool if they took a different stance based on starting out with a better approach. Then perhaps they could outsource their developments to their advantage. This is India after all...