Info Service on Climate Change (Nov09/02)
find attached an article by Sunita Narain, of Centre for Science and
Environment, an NGO in
Hope you find it interesting.
Sunita Narain: The climate coalition
new alliance, with
the clock ticks to
this puny target includes a huge amount of emission credits it will
‘buy’ from developing countries as offsets. In sum, it will actually
continue to increase its emissions till 2017, at the very least. Finally,
it has made it amply clear it will do this little bit only if
other words, the world now needs a second coalition of the willing —
this time for President Barack Obama. This time, not to go to war with
The generals are putting together the coalition, building block by building block.
there is the Australian proposal on a legal architecture for the post-2012
climate regime, submitted at the October Bangkok meet.
Australian proposal kills two birds with one stone. It gets rid of the
Kyoto Protocol, with its uncomfortable distinction between the world
and the Annex 1 nations, industrialised countries with high historical
and current emissions who have to take action first. It also gets the
all they need to complete this coalition is to split the G-77 and bring
one big dissenting country on board. Who other than
international media has been ‘worked’ to build a strong campaign to
play on our worst fears—being isolated and hated in a rich man’s world.
An image has been crafted:
But if we want to be part of the coalition, we must agree to their proposal. It is here we must spot the similarities between the ‘leaked’ letter of the minister of environment and forests to the prime minister, which asks for domestic legislation, international scrutiny on our mitigation actions, which we have to do for our own good and support for the Australian proposal.
If we accept this proposition, we will be the deal-makers. We will break ranks with the G-77/China bloc and join the gang of the powerful polluters.
this ‘pragmatic’ approach to bring the world’s most renegade nation
to the table be effective for climate change? Unequivocally, no. It
will dismantle a multilateral agreement based on setting global targets
to reduce emissions, equitable burden-sharing and strong mechanisms
for the most powerful to comply. Worse, it will do little to cut emissions
on the scale needed. The
This coalition of the willing has many powerful takers. In the days to come, the chorus will grow. Watch and wait. Hear and listen. The world is moving towards climate-disaster, and no Nobel Peace prize can cover that up.