@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
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…
Thank you @wang_seaver for a excellent analysis of current literature on 100%RE claims. Analysis of a kind that my colleague @KanitkarT, myself, and others including Sreeja Jaiswal, @Sreejaiswal, Aravindhan Nagarajan, @sciencebwoy, and Akhil Mythri) are partial to.
The paper titled "What the 100% Renewables Literature Gets Wrong" has this main conclusion - " Claims that Asia and Africa can easily achieve a clean energy transition at low cost using renewables and storage alone are bunk." India must take care!!
Thanks also for the callout to our work on scenarios, available here as policy briefs, and paper https://t.co/vKDjg29wZo. In this thread are some messages from @wang_seaver's work that stand out for me...twn.my/title2/climate… osf.io/p46ty/
Unhappily surprised by this contribution from a leading CGIAR scientist on climate and agriculture!! Not a word mentioned about the need for adaptation in agriculture. Focusing exclusively on mitigation.
Admits stringent 1.5 deg scenarios threaten food security in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and South Asia (SA). Omits mention that this is a reversal of current trends that are increasing food security. Also totally neglects differentiation between & within countries in agriculture.
By a bizarre twist of logic the burden of mitigation is actually placed on small holders in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Let us follow this through. Step 1 - Accepts that stringent mitigation could compromise food security and increase hunger in SSA and SA.
MOONWALKING CLIMATE RESPONSIBILITY. This Nature article walks historical and current responsibility backward -- putting the onus on developing countries. Despite the pious initial remark of how responsibility for solutions shouldn't fall on those whose contribution is the least.
Nowhere does it step forward to say how and to what extent developed countries should take the lead in emissions reduction. Some ritual hand-wringing of course on the failure to provide the USD100 billion promise and the hope that they will now do better on finance.
What it is specific on is what developing countries should do. Low-income countries are to provide elaborate plans for climate action and development needs, "signalling their serious intent" to integrate the two. Signal to whom? The "rich" or their academic M&E specialists?