Dr.Vincent P.J
The Copenhagen summit has raised much hue and cry ,signified nothing.The failure of the UN sponsored world summit highlighted the need for a new initiative at the global level to tackle the problem of climate change. The Copenhagen was the continuation of Kyoto and Bali summits. The real conflict was between the economic interests of developed countries and the developmental needs of the developing world. The 12-day exercise in Copenhagen widened the rift and there was less constructive work and no concensus. As a result the Copenhagen accord has fallen short of expectations much to the dismay of small island countries and developing world.
About 45000 people from different parts of the world reached Copenhagen and the vast majority convinced of the need for a legally binding international agreement to cut drastically, at least by 40%, the emission of green house gases. But the American intervention destroyed all hopes and turned the summit nothing more then a damp squib. The Copenhagen accord virtually undo the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and Bali Plan of Action (2007).
There are three main agendas before the summit. First and the most important was to cut the emission of green house gases by 25-40 percent or about 30 billion to 50 billion tonnes by 2020.A legally binding agreement should be reached at the summit. The second one was the question of reduction in the emission rate of the developing countries and the third related to the technical assistance and funding.
The large scale industrialisation started in Europe by 1850 and then this process spread to America. The process of industrialisation started only in the second half of 20th century in the post colonial world. So the responsibility of nations in adopting measures to reduce 'harmful emissions' shoulde be variable.The rich and developed nations are having greater responsibility in destroying the environmental balance and so they should bear the largest share of expenses to tackle global warming.But America persistently argues that all countries have equal responsibility.It is to be noted at this juncture that 38% of total carbon dioxide emission in the world is the contribution of America.75% of the total emission came from the developed industrial economies.So arguing for equal responsibility for all nations is simply injustice and a product of colonial mindset. The idea of ' variable responsibilty' was upheld in the Kyoto Protocol and Bali accord. The economic forum (G-77) of developing nations under the leadership of India strongly argued for this.They also argued that instead of calculating the amount of emission nation-wise,percapita emission must be taken.if nation-wise amount of emission is taken India comes 4th but in the case of percapita emission,India's position is 124th.
The adverse effects of global warming are acute in the equitorial region where developing world is located. The countries in the northern latitudes will be benefitted with higher yielding at least for the time being. At Copenhagen the industrialised countries proposed to limit the rise in mean temperature to two degree.It is been noted that a two degree rise in the atmospheric temperature will result in the submergence of a number of small island nations like Tuvalu,the Maldives,Lakshadweep and Andaman and Nicobar,Kuttanad in Kerala, Sundarbans in West Bengal and many offshore areas in different parts of the world.Frequent floods in the Gangetic plain will cause heavy loss of man and material .The report of an expert team constituted by FAO pointed out that for each 1 degree C rise in mean temperature,wheat yield losses in India will be around 6 million tonnes per year.Similar losses in other crops combined with climatic variations will result the loss of atleast ten thousand crores rupees per year.Frequent floods,irregular heavy rainfall and draught will shake the very base of India's food security.More than 60% of Indian agriculture depends on seasonal rainfall.Even a small climatic change will challenge the very base of our already impoverised farmers.In this backdrop India must have taken a very strong position at Copenhagen instead of supporting the 'Obama' accord.
The major powers are not in favour of a global deal at Copenhagen.The summit witnessed new political groupings.Over the last three years the question of human impact on climate change has been discussed at various internatinal forums such as G-8,Major Economies Forum(MEF) and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum(APEC). The developing countries have taken a common stand till Copenhagen.At Copenhagen the outreach economies formed a group known as BASIC Group of Countries (Brazil,South Afric,India and China) and took a common position supporting the Obama plan.The Copenhagen Understanding was an outcome of the last-minute deal in the back room between US and BASIC group.Initially the EU countries were critical of the US-BASIC 'accord' but they endorsed it at the end.The Copenhagen accord is a slightly modified version of G-8 and MEF declarations on climatic change.It is simply and informal agreement between a handful of countries .
The ALBA countries (Boliverian Alliance for the peoples of our America) and Sudan as president of G-77 group of countries declared that the Copenhagen Accord was unacceptable.Cuba,Venezuela and Bolivia raised their voice against the undemocratic understanding.The Afro- Latin Americal countries and small countries on the costal lines joined together at Copenhagen against the US-led imperialist block.India abandoned third world and allied with US.It is quite unbecoming of a country having very strong anti-imperialist base.India's position is the continuation of the strategic and political alliance established between India and US with the operationalisation of Indo-US Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement.The Copenhagen Summit witnessed the formation of 3 major groupings such as US-BASIC group, EU and Afro-Latin American group. This new polarisation will definitely alter the existing power relations at the global level.
The Copenhagen exercise was procedurarily a farce.The summit failed to deliver a climate deal mainly bacause of the imperialist strategy and tactics of US.Also the leaders of rich countries could not think beyond their borders.The generations to come will not pardon the developed nations for doing nothing to save mother earth.
