It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

India will not sign binding emmisions cuts

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   

India will not sign binding emmisions cuts


www.reuters.com

NEW DELHI, Dec 3 (Reuters) - India will not accept a legally binding emission cut nor a peak year of carbon emissions at the global climate talks in Copenhagen, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said on Thursday.

"There is no question of India accepting a legally binding emission reduction cut," he told parliament, laying out India's negotiating position ahead of the December talks.

India would however accept international verification of reductions if supported by financing and technology transfers.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
This will not be reported in the MSM for what it is. The Indians were just in DC for Obama's first official State Dinner. Clearly the timing of that dinner and the upcoming Climate Summit is no a coincidence. It was clearly an attempt to get India to sign on to the accord, knowing that we had no hope of getting the world's largest polluter, China to do anything (well he tried to get China's public support of the climate accord when in Asia last month and was told to pound sand).

Yet another example of the weakness of the science and the weak influence of the US on the international scene.

This however will be reported as "India chooses to remain huge polluter". Never mind that India has more people without power than any country on the planet and their challenges large enough to prevent them from signing on to feel good accords

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Good for them, they are building up their country and infrastructure. India is still for the most part a very undeveloped country and backwards in alot of ways. Once they do that they can worry about cutting down emissions if they so wish, i say the same about China aswell. Western developed countries forcing others who are simply trying to build a better country through means that western countries already have in their history is the height of arrogance imo.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Mmmmm... from what I have read elsewhere previously, China and the US are still listed as the two current biggest polluters. Maybe Obama needs to sit down with Saint Al of Gore and discuss getting their own house in order before they criticise others.


The other issue here, is that so much of the western world's service and manufacturing has been outsourced to India in recent years, simply to jack up the corporate profit margin, as the labour costs are so much lower and environmental / health and safety laws and protections are set waaaaay lower than back home - if they exist at all.
If our western leaders want to be champions of the outsourcing to countries like India, then they have to recognise too that the infrastructure has to be there to support it. That means more power usage and industrial pollutants, all for the sake of corporate greed which, as always, trumps doing anything good.
Of course, they know this, but have to at least try and make it look like they are unhappy with nasty India polluting the region.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


It has nothing to do with hoax or weakness of science or weakness of politics. India is not signing the climate deal because certain conditions has not been met. In global term India is still a "developing country" and any current proposed restriction due to carbon emission will result in slowdown of economy. India is saying the deal should be different for "developed countries" and "developing country". This is the main reason.

Secondly, if you are not aware India has taken steps voluntarily to cut down emissions. Such as banning petroleum and diesel vehicles for public transports and instead using CNG(gas) vehicles in metropolitan cities.

India is suffering severely from global warming. So please do some research before you post about it and start your rhetoric.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
first biggest polluter = luxembourg
2nd = Hong Kong

I am somewhat surprised, India was under alot of pressure, more than any other country to sign the deal.

Countries under much much less pressure will be signing while the country under the most pressure won't.

Interesting.


EDIT: December Rain, India suffers from pollution, not global warming.
My wife is in India now and she is saying it's colder there right now than Canada!

Can you believe that?

[edit on 3-12-2009 by ModernAcademia]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


They know its also about stopping threats to the west. Also russia should not want this deal.

Its all about the west holding onto power.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Check out these ads from Greenpeace on the climate:

weblog.greenpeace.org...

Funny how India isn't portrayed here or at least not in the blog.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan

India will not sign binding emmisions cuts


www.reuters.com

NEW DELHI, Dec 3 (Reuters) - India will not accept a legally binding emission cut nor a peak year of carbon emissions at the global climate talks in Copenhagen, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said on Thursday.

"There is no question of India accepting a legally binding emission reduction cut," he told parliament, laying out India's negotiating position ahead of the December talks.

India would however accept international verification of reductions if supported by financing and technology transfers.
(visit the link for the full news article)



My understanding is Canada is taking the same position.

Thx for the post.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
SO will the us take the same position that is



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
India being the largest Democracy in the world...is going to be pressured by Washington in every feasable way to 'put-them-in-their-place'

Washington is allowing India to become a counter to China in that region,
and with its nuclear status will have more geopolitical clout than our Ally Austalia...

India is on pace to upgrade itself from 3 wheel scooters to actual 4 wheel autos....and the /USA is trying to nip that in-the-bud...probably because TATA is a successful, private auto co. unlike the USAs group of auto failures, except for 'Ford'


If we ain't careful, we'll be creating another bunch of people that engage in fighting the USA hegemony



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


India has indeed taken steps to cut down emissions, notably in their public transportation system. India also has percapita the largest volume of internal combustion engines being put into production in an annual basis in the world. That makes sense because they have the fastest growing middle class in the world.

China turns a coal-fire plant a week. India brings three on-line a month. India is the second largest consumer of coal in the world, behind China.

The conditions that have not been met make the accord unacceptable to India and in that they are right. They are being asked to improve their emissions at roughly the same rate as the modernized world and that is clearly not a viable solution for them as they are a developing nation, which you accurately stated.

The point of this entire post has little to do with their acceptance of the terms of the accord. The point is that rather than saying something delicate like, "the accord is an important goal for all countrys to consider and we will certainly work with the body to make it something India can support" or something like that, they simply came out and said "no deal". After the solicitation by Obama to be a signatory of the accord, that response is without question a rebuke. That is the crux of the issue - the manner and tone in which they stated they would not comply.

Rather than direct me to do a bit of research, perhaps you could work on understanding the nuances of geopolitics.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by December_Rain
 


The point of this entire post has little to do with their acceptance of the terms of the accord. The point is that rather than saying something delicate like, "the accord is an important goal for all countrys to consider and we will certainly work with the body to make it something India can support" or something like that, they simply came out and said "no deal". After the solicitation by Obama to be a signatory of the accord, that response is without question a rebuke. That is the crux of the issue - the manner and tone in which they stated they would not comply.

Rather than direct me to do a bit of research, perhaps you could work on understanding the nuances of geopolitics.


I agree with whatever you wrote except the above statements which I am quoting. India was/is very willing to adapt the treaty and India never "rejected" outright that Climate change treaty. Instead they presented a roadmap which was rejected by other countries.

Please go thru the below given link. That's India's official stance for climate treaty. It's in .pdf so you will require Adobe or something similar.

THE ROAD TO COPENHAGEN: India’s Position on Climate Change Issues - Public Diplomacy Division, Ministry of External Affairs
Government of India www.meaindia.nic.in...

and after that please visit this link to what India is asking:

India's Climate Change Policy and Trade Concerns:Issues, Barriers and Solutions - Centre for Trade and Development

So it is highly incorrect to state India outright rejected the Climate treaty r rebuked Obama/USA. India has never changed it's stance even during the period Bush was in office.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


No - we're exactly on the same page. India has not changed their position in the least. The issue is the fact that politicians can say 1000 words and say nothing. They did not do that. They said "no", which in the current climate (no pun intended) is a rebuke. Could have easily mashed words together to enable Obama to at least look OK. The way they responded made him look weak. I've been to India a number of times and have a number of Indian friends. Culturally they are not blunt. This was blunt therefore the manner in which the message was more informative than the message itself.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join