Comments on: Is India questioning the science?

By: Deepa Gupta

Deepa Gupta — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:54:09 +0000

Hi guys,

So to clarify at no point do I feel like India should not deviate from BAU – it must, it cannot grow with the same intensity of emissions that the over-developed world has. And nor am I saying that the 15-30% deviation from BAU is to little or too large.

The point I’m making is not on the targets itself – in terms of whether they’re good or bad. The point I’m making is about the process that was taken to arrive at those figures that is being tossed around with authority. Those deviation figures may be exactly what we need. But it is said that those figures aren’t based purely on historical emissions or financial capability, but created based on the inability/refusal for the global north to reduce the emissions they need to, hence it is put on the global south.

It is unfair if countries take one study and start flouting that number without a rigorous understudy. I mean 5 ngo’s came out with a draft treaty and proposed the emissions level for developing countries and they didn’t talk about the 15-30% BAU deviation either. Whatever has been put on the table needs to be rigorously verified.

And yes I completely agree with outdated science, we shouldn’t even be aiming for 450ppm if we’re advocating for survival, but my article wasn’t around 450ppm or 350ppm, it was around process. Whatever we call science MUST BE SCIENTIFIC and not policy/political.

Hope this clarifies…

By: Adi Nochur

Adi Nochur — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:57:38 +0000

As a fellow Indian who has had less-than-fulfulling encounters with Mr. Ghosh (see http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2006/11/02/india-joins-the-asia-pacific-pact) I must respectfully disagree with elements of this post. Matt makes a good point above that the IPCC science is increasingly out of date. Similarly, many of us in the youth climate movement have been pushing for a 350 ppm target, which is based upon NASA’s James Hansen’s papers but is not mentioned in any IPCC documents. The IPCC is certainly an authoritative source on climate science — but it is not the only one, and we would do well to also heed other analyses that urge us to call for for drastic action, while of course taking into consideration equity issues between the developed and developing worlds.

By: Matt Dernoga

Matt Dernoga — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:29:04 +0000

Here is one positive commitment that India appears to be making though

http://madrad2002.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/indias-solar-committment/

By: Matt Dernoga

Matt Dernoga — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:28:26 +0000

It’s always a tough position to take on this since realistically, developing countries NEED to alter their emissions trajections, or we bake the planet. It’s not as though I take any comfort in saying we need that from countries that are still trying to lift people out of poverty. I also don’t live in a bubble, and I know developed nations are largely responsible for emissions in the atmosphere already. Obviously the developed need to provide a lot of assistance to the developing nations in these emissions reductions. I think this is as fair a stance as we can take while keep in mind that emissions need to be brought under control for all.

Regarding where this new number came from, I would say the IPCC is more conservative than most other scientific acadamies and institutions regarding the devastation of climate change, and quantity of emissions reductions needed. Furthermore, the IPCC report came out in early 2007 and it’s ressearch was collected from a few years before that. The IPCC emissions cuts are out of date. They are not in line with the science already. Since the IPCC report came out, we’ve had emissions grow faster than ever for 2 whole years. If anything the cuts we need are deeper now than they were in that report.

By: lamont

lamont — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:19:02 +0000

I beleive that the world collectivly should do something to reduce pollution and when countris like india and america refuse to adhere to global policies it makes my blood boil what is the point of making these global confrences when the largest pollutors refuse to follow