@ThomasASpencer@tkanitkar@vnamas@nit_set@JMauskar@3rdworldnetwork Useful thread. Some points: I entirely agree with the assessment of the relative economic strengths of India and China. And that India can't be "de-carbonizing" when it has not even carbonized really. 1/n
Thats a good point to make in these hubris ridden times in India. As I have always maintained, India's entrepreneurial and cultivator classes are so backward in productivity that they cannot even "pollute efficiently". 2/n
I only wish you could also convince Indian environmentalists of this -- who celebrate India's productivity crisis as some kind of proto-sustainability, or who, in some "left" hubris, think India can outdo China in climate action. 3/n
The same disease of equating the "dragon and the elephant" afflicts our intellectual class as well, though more due to contagion during their education, than obtained through analytical effort. 4/n
What should India do? First, sectoral peaking year commitments are not meaningful, especially in power and passenger transport which u choose. These two are key to India's emissions and will contribute since other sectors which are hard-to-abate are linked to these two. 5/n
Power is part of the foundations of the whole economy and passenger transport is closely linked to urbanization and the uncertainties there do not permit any easy peaking commitment. Peaking in these sectors is pretty close to an aggregate commitment. 6/n
Second, what we need badly is clarity and consensus in the polity, society and in government, on where we need to reach. When these are lacking, strategy documents written by TERI, MSSRF or by Govt are of little use. Transparency is a big fat red herring. 7/n
Third, it is easier to break relationships than to make them. India and China have held together in the climate arena with good reason. Nor does this mean that we cannot recognize the differences. 8/n
I have always maintained that developing countries are a continuum, and have taken much flak on that score from established climate hands in India, even though there are also common ties. Hang together or hang separately. Will it last? Unclear. But no case to wilfully break. 9/n
What you slightingly refer to as rhetoric, is part of the foundation of global cooperation in climate. If India has not been able to, or had the stomach to, operationalise these principles, the loss is not India's alone, but also the world's. 10/n
A loss that marks the onset of a very inequitable climate regime. Boats don't sail for countries like India. India can robustly stand up to inequitable global regimes. But India's establishment has never thought that climate change merits such effort. 11/n
In sum, India's NDC, declared on independent terms, based on India's responsibilities in the light of equity and CBDR-RC, needs no revision until 2030. Certainly not because China may revise its own. 12/n
As for long term strategy under the Paris Agreement, the terms are sufficiently flexible to allow India to examine its options after the Global Stocktake. This will enable us to gauge our response in the light of the will to action (beyond rhetoric) from the developed countries.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
HOW "BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE" MAKES IT ALONGSIDE YOUR MORNING COFFEE AS NEW CLIMATE POLICY..
A classic example of how climate-scenarios-based "science" leads to so-called "policy analysis" that feeds the global North narrative.
At lightning speed by 16th August @CarbonBrief has a comment out on a paper that has just been published on 12th August (see here for paper ).nature.com/articles/s4155…
Unsurprisingly this is from Nature Climate Change (NCC), and open access. The first means that the NCC editorial desk (the gatekeepers) has to accept the paper, before peer review even begins -- a favour certainly not given to all. Second a hefty open access fee has been paid -- £8890.00/$12290.00/€10290.00.
The article itself is written by very "influential" authors, representative of the mitigation scenarios community. It is unlikely that the NCC gatekeeper would turn it down. The paper clearly made it to print quite fast -- submitted 28 Feb. 2024, accepted 20 June, in print 12 Aug.
@CSEINDIA makes a surprising turn towards cheer-leading for carbon markets in India, moving away from its well-known stance of caution on market-driven approaches. Here is a quick deconstruction of the most problematic aspects of this new turn....
Based on the report: .40552200_1723533649_the-indian-carbon-market-pathway-towards-an-effective-mechanism-report.pdf
and a press statement: 1/nhttp___cdn.cseindia.org cseindia.org/cse-recommends…
Key recommendations and their issues: 1. Moving from the "perform, achieve, trade" (PAT) mode to "Indian carbon market" mode in hard-to-abate sectors.This has been mentioned in FM's budget speech 2024. But the CSE Report calls for a wholesale shift with "large coverage of emissions" (not merely hard-to-abate sectors) and basically a discontinuation of the PAT scheme. 2/n
The tricky part is how to move to emissions per production unit (or unit of production) accounting while not undermining India's NDC. India's NDC is not on an emissions reduction basis but only an emissions intensity basis. The CSE report while praising the virtues of emissions accounting pays no heed to what is the equitable level of emissions reduction that is to be targeted in these sectors that is aligned with India's NDC. 3/n
Spoke about inequitable IPCC AR6 scenarios and our alternate framework for equitable futures in Delhi today. Curious reactions. Immediate pushback from a CSO/MI personality in the room pooh poohing the framework as not fitting the "real world" of negotiations.
Also dismissive of a distinguished African guest's impassioned plea to refocus on equity, development and well being of the populations of the global South.
Another person changed tack to arguing that it was India's (and presumably other global South countries) fault that the issue of equity could not be emphasized in the negotiations. Not a word about the fact that the e-word is anathema for the global North!!
The climate crisis just got incredibly worse!! The leading superpower, that refuses to acknowledge its historical responsibility for global warming, refuses to accept binding emission reduction targets has just undone whatever little it has been doing so far!! nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/…
Let us see who will have the honesty to tell the superpower, when their spokespersons mouth the words "keeping 1.5 deg within reach", will bluntly tell them to cease their hypocrisy.
It is an article of faith for the US in promoting the Paris Agreement that it will be able to implement its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by administrative actions and incentives to its businesses - meaning the massive trans-national corporations that dominate their economic life.
Three key reasons for such rejection: This criterion of success i) demands that no new "substantial" emissions take place in adaptation, ii) does not recognize any differentiation between developed and developing countries and iii) flies in the face of socio-economic realities.
Let us deconstruct this method of "gauging the success" of adaptation by examining this figure from the authors of this method.
Congratulations to @JimSkeaIPCC on his election as Chair of @IPCC_CH. At COP27, @mssrf and @NIAS_India were privileged to have him on our panel discussion at the India Pavilion on Climate Equity, Carbon Budgets and IPCC AR6 Scenarios. @moefcc @byadavbjp @JRBhatt60 @KanitkarT
My colleague @KanitkarT and I appreciated @JimSkeaIPCC willingness to listen and engage, though there was considerable distance between our views. We are encouraged by his post-election remarks, though the journey to achieving it will be a testing one in practice.
Congratulations too to the full Bureau elected to lead the IPCC through Seventh Assessment Cycle. . Includes good friend Prof. Raman Sukumar as Working Group II Vice-Chair and several others in the Bureau that we are privileged to know.ipcc.ch/2023/07/28/ipc…