| |
|
Time for a Climate Plan B
|
|
Published on :
Tuesday, December 22, 2009 |
|
The reasons for the complete and utter failure of Copenhagen are both fundamental and irresolvable. The economic cost of decarbonizing the world's economies is massive, and of at least the same order of magnitude as any benefits it may conceivably bring in terms of a cooler world in the next century. The reason we use carbon-based energy is not the political power of the oil lobby or the coal industry. It is because it is far and away the cheapest source of energy at the present time and is likely to remain so, not forever, but for the foreseeable future. There is a need to recognise the reality, says Nigel Lawson in the Wall Street Journal. |
|
|
|
|
Climate change in Copenhagen: The new hegemony
|
|
Published on :
Tuesday, December 22, 2009 |
|
Many Western governments promised huge amounts as climate dividend in the hope that some leaders from poor countries would find cash too luring and agree to sell the future of their own people,” says Barun Mitra. He says that the hegemony gets clothed with apparent concern for the poor, reports Priyanka Golikeri in the Daily News & Analysis. |
|
|
|
|
After Copenhagen: Time for plan B
|
|
Published on :
Sunday, December 20, 2009 |
|
"The Copenhagen fiasco was inevitable because the basic approach of current climate policy is fundamentally wrong. The deadlock provides policy makers with an opportunity to recognise that the failure was not accidental but systemic. There must therefore be no more futile conferences with this failed agenda," said Lord Lawson, the Chairman of the GWPF. |
|
|
|
|
The Indefinite Climate Moratorium
|
|
Published on :
Sunday, December 20, 2009 |
|
The Copenhagen fiasco was not just foreseeable, it was inevitable. The inability of the international community to break the climate deadlock reflects the incompatible national interests and demands that divide the west and the rest. This is now a permanent feature in what is likely to become an indefinite moratorium on international climate law-making, writes Dr Benny Peiser in The Observer. |
|
|
|
|
Need for New Approach to Solving Global Warming: Bjorn Lomborg
|
|
Published on :
Friday, December 18, 2009 |
|
Bjorn Lomborg notes that the world still depends on fossil fuels for more than 80% of its energy. “What will developing countries use to power their economies if they can’t burn fossil fuels?” he asks. “Alternative energy technologies like solar, wind, and geothermal power all have great promise, but they are nowhere near ready to shoulder that kind of load. Trying to force drastic carbon emissions cuts in the short-term doesn’t work economically or politically. We should have the courage to admit that this is the wrong road – and that it’s time to adopt a new strategy for dealing with climate change. |
|
|
|
|
Don't put the south on the road to permanent poverty
|
|
Published on :
Saturday, December 05, 2009 |
|
Palm cultivation has a lower carbon footprint than some other biofuel operations.
The question is whether or not developing nations should be permitted to harness their natural resources to lift their people out of poverty. Many rich-nation delegates, particularly from Europe, say "no" as they fear such development will exacerbate climate change and ecological degradation, ask Richard Tren and Franklin Cudjoe in the Bangkok Post |
|
|
|
|
India and climate change negotiations: Imperative of economic growth
|
|
Published on :
Thursday, August 27, 2009 |
|
Given that 300 million Indians still live in abject poverty and 400 million are without access to electricity, achieving this objective requires sustained rapid growth complemented by well-crafted social programmes for some decades to come. The question then is whether such growth is feasible while implementing mitigation targets beginning in the near future, say, 2020. The foremost objective India must pursue in the forthcoming decades is to provide a humane existence with adequate access to basic amenities such as shelter, water and electricity to all citizens, writes Arvind Panagariya in the Economic Times. |
|
|
|
|
India attacks western climate alarmism
|
|
Published on :
Friday, July 24, 2009 |
|
Jairam Ramesh, the Indian environment minister, accused the developed world of needlessly raising alarm over melting Himalayan glaciers. India has taken the hardest line in the negotiations in Copenhagen 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, reports James Lamont, Joshua Chaffin and Fiona Harvery in the Financial Times. |
|
|
|
|
India should say 'No' at Copenhagen
|
|
Published on :
Thursday, July 23, 2009 |
|
The principal reason US targets India is that it is ill-at-ease targeting China alone. It can be scarcely unaware that mitigation by India from its current emission levels would do little to alleviate global warming. At Copenhagen, India should clearly indicate that it would not sign an unjust and inequitable trade sanctions; that it would challenge any attempt at enforcing such sanctions against non-signatories in the WTO dispute settlement body; and that if necessary it would exercise its right to retaliate in WTO-legal fashion, writes Arvind Panagariya in the Economic Times. |
|
|
|
|
Is India's compromise on emission at G8 summit, at the cost of development?
|
|
Published on :
Friday, July 17, 2009 |
|
If the UN negotiations were to adopt the concepts India has signed on at the Major Emitters' Forum on climate change, the tables could turn against India. The MEF statement that India has signed on to, though calling it a mere political line not really enforceable at the UN negotiations, has now weakened the link between actions that India takes and the costs that the rich nations would bear, reports Nitin Sethi in the Times of India. |
|
|
|
|