1 DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAWUNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

B.A. LL.B. (HONS.) IX SEMESTER

SUBJECT: International Environmental Law

Seminar Paper

TOPIC: Copenhagen Summit And India

UNDER THE GUIDENCE OF: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. A K Tiwari ANKIT KR MISHRA

Professor ROLL NO. : 18

B.A. LL.B. (HONS.)

Climate Change: An Indianperspective on the CopenhagenSummit “What happens to the animals in the seas happens to us- men

and women. What happens to the forests happens to us in our

bodies, since our bodies like the trees are made of the same

earth. Are not our bodies moving clay forms endowed with

intelligence? A conscientious effort at healing the earth would

manifest as the ultimate healing of our own bodies”- Sri Bhagavan

Amidst all this talk of saving the environment and the

innumerable summits taking place across the globe in the presence

of luminaries who have done distinguished service in this field,

a thought provoking idea comes to my mind: what if all of us are

actually proceeding in the wrong direction? The answer to saving

the environment is to act now. Now represents today. If we

continue in this manner of conducting negotiation between

countries and designating the

success of a environment conference in accordance with the total

number of countries which attend the summit, then there is no way

we can avoid this impending doom.

The Copenhagen Summit is an example where over 163 countries had

come forward to be a part of this historic summit. But the number

of participation is just an indicator of the number of voices

which are waiting to be heard. It is definitely a momentous step

in the history of the Earth but still nothing changes the reality

of today. Even after the other historic summits like the Earth

summit and the Stockholm Declaration much furor was raised over

the issue of environmental degradation but as soon as the

representatives returned back to their nations, all the voices

were silenced.

Even the treaties which are signed at such conferences remain to

be admired only on paper as the ground reality is unaffected as

ever. These multilateral, bilateral agreements and MoU’s raise

global media attention but at the grass roots level, the

polluters continue to pollute and no strict action can ever be

taken in the absence of strict enforcement agencies and public

awareness.

Though all this has been in the public glare for decades and

reports of increasing depletion of ozone layer and increasing

temperature of the planet are almost a daily feature in our

lives, what has changed is the environment itself. The planet has

lost its capacity to take further assaults on its fragile nature

and it is retaliating in the form of increasing natural

calamities, mass droughts, drying up of fresh water resources as

well flooding of coastal areas. There is

no way any government of any country can prevent such natural

calamities. This can be controlled only by treating nature with

the dignity it deserves. Focus must be on small actions and not

on entering into agreements and promises which are put on the

back burner the moment they are signed. This is a real serious

concern plaguing the world and our repeated laxity towards it has

jeopardized the future of the entire mankind. What steps we take

now shall determine not just the future of our coming generations

but also ours as well. The effects of environmental degradation

are already apparent in our times only. The statistics are scary

but this is something which is still being ignored by the top

honchos of the countries while the common man on the streets is

bearing the brunt of faulty policies and broken agreements. For

the people in positions of power who live in the comfort of air-

conditioners and other luxuries, the heat of rising temperatures

and droughts cannot even touch. But it is the common man

who remains the man in agony all his life and then dies

suffering. The problem of environmental protection is of more

significance to the developing countries. Here the common man is

unconcerned about environmental pollution. It is more of a

struggle to get two decent meals a day for self and his family.

Developing and under-developing are crippled with the issues of

poverty and unemployment. Here the focus is always on development

as economic growth is the only way to achieve a reasonable

standard of living. After all right to life guaranteed by the

Indian Constitution as a inalienable fundamental right includes

not just the live with liberty but also right to live in a clean

environment with a dignified right to livelihood. Eradication of

poverty is a must for improving environment. It was stated by

Mrs. Indira Gandhi, ex- Prime Minister of India, “of all the

polluters we have, poverty is the worst polluter”.

As long as a man is not free from the vicious cycle of poverty,

the idea of saving the earth is not consequence to him. But the

irony of the situation is such that it is the common citizenry

who is the most affected of the disasters resulting from

environmental degradation.

What we should know about the

summit:

What is the Copenhagen climate change summit?

The UN meeting is the deadline for thrashing out a successor to

the Kyoto protocol, with the aim of preventing dangerous global

warming. It will run for two weeks from 7 December and is the

latest in a series that trace their origins to the 1992 Earth

summit in Rio.

What's the bottom line?

Climate scientists are convinced the world must stop the growth

in greenhouse gas emissions and start making them fall very soon.

To have a chance of keeping warming under the dangerous 2C mark,

cuts of 25%-40% relative to 1990 levels are needed, rising to

80%-95% by 2050. So far, the offers on the table are way below

these targets.

 Who should make the cuts?

That is a crunch issue. The industrialized nations such as the

US, UK, Japan and others have emitted by far the most carbon and

still emit vast amounts per person, so have a responsibility to

make the deep cuts scientists demand. But emissions from emerging

economies such as China and India are surging, and any global

limit on emissions needs curbs on those nations, too. Yet, per

person, those nations have small carbon footprints and millions

of people in deep poverty – 400 million Indians live without

electricity, for example. So China, India and others can argue

they need to be allowed to continue to pollute for a while as

they improve their citizens' lives. Balancing the

responsibilities for cuts is a key part of the negotiations.

Who is going to pay?

There is an argument that, in the long term, a low-carbon economy

will be cheaper than a fossil-fuelled one, and represents a

fantastic investment. But time is short and there will be costs

in the near term. All agree that the poorest nations need urgent

help. Citizens in places from Haiti to Sudan to Bangladesh have

done virtually nothing to pollute the atmosphere, but are bearing

the worst impacts of floods and droughts. Richer nations will

need to pay billions from now – some call it reparations for

damage to the Earth's climate. It will also cost a lot to build

the global clean energy infrastructure essential to staunch the

carbon from coal and gas power stations, responsible for a large

part of global emissions. For the fast emerging economies, such

as India, the ideal is to skip the high-carbon growth phase

entirely and go straight to renewable and perhaps nuclear power.

Again, rich nations will be expected to pick up the tab. for this

-– if they don't, there is little incentive to stop building

coal-fired plants. Gordon Brown and the EU have suggested $100bn

a year from 2020 would cover the global climate change bill. But

estimates from development groups reach up to four times that

amount. Finding a figure that all nations accept is the second

key part of the negotiations.

What about carbon trading?

In theory, buying permits to pollute from those who can cut their

emissions most cheaply is attractive – maximum bang per buck and

a flow of cash to pay for investments. However, from one

perspective, this kind of offsetting simply looks like paying

poorer people to clear up the mess left by the rich, who can then

continue to pollute. Also, if carbon trading is to cut real

emissions, the cap set on the market has to be tight and, to

date, political imperatives have overridden those of the planet.

Nonetheless, carbon trading will remain at the heart of any

treaty sealed in Copenhagen, as it was in the Kyoto treaty.

Is stopping deforestation an easier way to cut emission?

About 40% of all the carbon emitted by human activity has come

from razing forests. Stopping deforestation is, in principle,

cheap and simple: do not cut them down. But paying people – via

carbon credits – not to fell trees soon becomes complex. Who

really owns the trees? Were they going to be chopped down anyway?

And how do you verify what actually happens? Finding a solution

to these issues is one of the strongest hopes for the Copenhagen

summit.

What are the prospects for a Copenhagen deal?

Negotiations held in September in Barcelona were grim: all now

acknowledge that no legal deal is possible in Copenhagen. A

miracle is needed for a triumph. President Barack Obama is the

one who could deliver it, but it is very unlikely. Most likely is

a hopeful fudge in which all parties remain on speaking terms and

seal the deal in 2010. A total collapse would leave 20 years' of

negotiations in tatters and the world unprotected against the

ravages of global warming. It is also unlikely, but not as

unlikely as a miracle.

Copenhagen Summit 2009

The UN Climate Change Conference (COP15) more famously known as

Copenhagen Summit held in Copenhagen, in Denmark summit from 7 to

18 December 2009, is an example step taken by the world community

to solve the global crisis of environmental deterioration. This

summit was regarded as the one stop destination for the rising

ecological problems. Overall

the summit turned out to be a huge disappointment as it failed to

stand up to the expectations of millions across the world who

expected this meeting of nations to deliver the final and much

needed solution to solve environmental crisis and to chart out

the road ahead after the expiration of the Kyoto protocol.

Greater involvement was expected from the United States of

America, as it has the recognition of having the largest rate of

carbon emissions contributing

in a huge way to the rise in global warming and all its

consequential negative alarming effects. However, the summit

cannot be labeled as a complete failure.

The Copenhagen Accord, though not without its glaring faults is a

small step towards greater global cooperation and integration for

achieving the larger goal of saving the environment. Released on

December 19, 2009, the accord is a three page declaration that

lays down the path for future UN climate change negotiations and

to help nations for mitigating global emissions. In the

subsequent discussion, implications of this accord and its

significance for India shall be discussed.

Summary

The Copenhagen Climate Change summit was a gathering of world

leaders in the capital of Denmark over a two week period from 7th

- 18th December 2009.   

Aims of the Summit

The aims of this meeting was to come up with a deal to replace

the Kyoto protocol, a deal which is to expire in 2012.  15,000

delegates and officials were present, representing 192 nations,

all with different expectations/aspirations of what they wanted

to achieve.

What About Kyoto?

The Kyoto Protocol was a global agreement on the reduction of the

main greenhouse gas emissions that are linked to climate change

and global warming.

The original meeting took place in Kyoto, Japan in 1997, when 110

governments agreed that industrialized countries should cut their

greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2% from the 1990

level by the year 2008-2012.  The Kyoto Agreement would only

become legally binding when the industrialized nations accounting

for 55% of the carbon dioxide emissions ratify the agreement.

The Kyoto Protocol was the first international treaty to set

legally binding targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions.  It was

finally ratified by 183 countries and the EC; the USA was not one

of them, despite having the world’s biggest economy and emitting

the second largest amount of greenhouse gases/carbon.  It was

signed as a framework accord in 1997 but didn’t come into effect

until February 2005.

The Kyoto agreement provided a legal distinction between

developed and developing nations which the poorer countries

wanted to maintain.  It placed a clear responsibility on the

shoulders of rich nations, committing them to reduce overall

emissions of 6 categories of greenhouse gases by at least 5% by

2008-12, compared to 1990 levels.  Developing nations did not

have any binding targets to meet; they were only expected to

attempt to develop in “clean” ways.  Some countries like the US

did not ratify this agreement thinking it unfair that they would

have to meet set targets while other countries would not. 

Developing countries were concerned that any new treaty would not

be as strict or legally binding.  They were also concerned that

their development could be slowed down because they couldn’t use

as many fossil fuels as developed nations had done in the past. 

However, some of these “developing” countries included China

which has overtaken American as the bigger carbon producer even

though per capita each person has a much smaller footprint and

much ofwhat they produce is for export to the richer nations.

During the Summit

The final few days of the summit were meant to be when the

majority of negotiations would be done so that world leaders who

arrived at that time could tie things up.  However, progress was

incredibly slow until Barack Obama arrived on the last day. 

Negotiations almost collapsed altogether when  the US, together

with some other key nations together proposed an “accord”.  At

the time this was merely “noted” by the UN but has since become

something more concrete.  Many people thought the summit a

failure, but some gems of hope can be extracted from it, not

least the fact that so many world leaders gathered to discuss

what is finally recognized as a global threat of extreme

importance.

The Results

The summit did not result in the historic deal which millions of

people had hoped for, but there were some signs of progress which

should not be overlooked. 

 It “recognised” the scientific case for keeping global

temperature rises below the 2 degree centigrade danger threshold

(although not the 1.5 degree centigrade which many developing

nations thought necessary to protect their land and people). 

However, the  accord did not set any emission targets to achieve

this limit so countries did not have to commit to anything in

particular.  The deal was “non-binding” so countries only sign up

to it on a voluntary basis.  The goal of cutting emissions by 80%

by 2050 was also dropped.  It is up to individual governments to

set their own targets of what they are prepared to do.  

The legally binding Kyoto protocol is currently preserved. The

accord aims to provide funds to help developing nations adapt to

climate change - $30 billion/year until 2012 and $100 billion by

2020. They also agreed to provide finance to help prevent

deforestation which accounts for about 17% of carbon emissions.

Reasons for Hope

Considering the US did not even ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the

fact that their President attended the Copenhagen summit and was

a key player in coming to some kind of agreement is a huge step

forward.

As of 18th February 2010, 61 countries, accounting for over 78%

of global emissions from energy use have submitted their

mitigation pledges including representatives from both developed

and developing nations - something which has never happened

before.  These include all the EU countries, the USA, China,

India, Indonesia and Brazil.  It is notable though that Brazil is

so far the only Latin American country to have signed up and that

only 6 out of a possible 55 African countries have too.  That

leaves 137 countries which have not made pledges.  While these

pledges are a good start it is said that if achieved they are

only half of what needs to be done in order to avoid the worst

effects of climate change.

Climate-gate

Attention was unfortunately diverted from the summit’s ideals

when a leak from some private e-mails between members of the IPCC

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) became international

news.  This served to undermine the authenticity of their reports

on Climate Change which so many world bodies were relying on for

accurate information.  In the UK data from the MET Office was

quickly released in order to counteract this and show the public

and leaders alike that there was still huge amounts of data in

favour of the arguments put forward regarding climate change by

the IPCC.

The People Movement

The Copenhagen Climate Change Summit saw an international

movement of people involved in demonstrations and protests.  On

December 12th 2009 a march of up to 100,000 protesters took to

the streets of Copenhagen.  Many thought it hypocrisy that

leaders should be turning up in limousines and private jets!

“The Wave” was a peaceful demonstration in London where people

marched to Parliament to demonstrate their support for a strong

treaty in Copenhagen.  It was attended by about 20,000 - 40,000

protesters (estimates vary wildly!) with another 7,000 in

Scotland.  They were marching with three goals in mind:

to ask developed countries to cut their emissions by 40% by

2020;

increase the UK’s renewable energy supply and

provide $150 billion a year to help poorer nations cope with

the impacts of climate change.  

The UK government was already the first in the world to set its

own legally binding law in October 2008, committing to 80% cuts

in all UK carbon emissions by 2050, including aviation and

shipping.  This was largely the result of a grassroots campaign.

Implications of the Accord

The highlights of the accord deal with greater potential for

involvement of the US towards a global climate change regime,

inclusion of developing country reduction plans in global

reporting and increased financial support for developing

countries. But the severe limitations of the Copenhagen Accord

ditch the situation regarding environment protection in

uncertainty. The reasons behind the dubbing of the conference as

a failure include no binding GHG (green

house gases which are the main reason for rising levels of global

warming) emission reduction targets, lack of a deadline or

consensus to formulate the path after the expiry of the Kyoto

protocol and absence of much needed reform of the Clean

Development mechanism market. Also concerns of aviation and

maritime emissions still remain to be addressed. Nevertheless,

the conference and its subsequent achievement cannot be termed as

a complete failure.

Climate Change and India

“We have the moral responsibility to bequeath to our Children a

world which is safe, clean and productive, A world which should

continue to inspire the human imagination with the immensity of

the blue ocean, the loftiness of snow-covered mountains, The

green expanse of extensive forests and the silver streams of

ancient rivers”

These were some golden words by our very own Prime Minister Dr.

Manmohan Singh which

is the dream of every global citizen. The Copenhagen summit has

captured the imagination of the people. Suddenly everyone seems

to be talking about environment. Talks are being held; cover page

stories are running in all major national dailies; everyone it

seems wants to save the environment. Awareness is at an all time

high. History however favors India as the concept of

environmental protection is not a novel idea in India. Recent

Parliament legislations as well as judicial decisions reveal that

the corridors of power are not lying in wait for an international

policy to be formed on the lines of the Kyoto protocol but have

in itself taken steps to preserve the fragile ecosystem of our

planet. India was one of the first countries in the world to

enact and implement environmental legislation in accordance with

the Stockholm declaration 1972.

Beginning with the Water Act 1974, a series of laws have been

passed by the Indian parliament

to prevent environmental degradation and to follow the principles

laid down in the Stockholm Declaration namely Air act,

Environment Protection act, wildlife act and forest conservation

act. The Stockholm Declaration on human environment resulting

from the United Nations

Conference on human environment gave a much needed impetus to the

concept of Sustainable

Development late back in 1972. Though the term sustainable

development was first used in the Cocoyoc Declaration, it

attained much fame after the report of the Bruntland Commission

in 1987. It mainly refers to utilization of natural resources of

the world in such a planned way that the ability of future

generations to sustain themselves is not impaired. It adheres to

the idea of

Inter- generational rights. In fact the idea that, for the

benefit of future generations, present generations should be

modest in their exploitation of natural resources has found wide

spread international approval since the Maltese Proposal at the

UN General Assembly of 1967, which contended that there was a

common heritage of mankind and that this also required legal

protection by the international community. This whole concept is

based on the idea that

natural resources such as sea bed are not the fruits of the labor

of present generations and thus these resources can only be

exploited with adequate consideration of the “rights” of future

generations.

Unfortunately, Climate change has become the utmost issue which

cannot be ignored; it’s a

challenge which requires an ambitious global response. It was

through various protocols like Kyoto Protocol, conferences like

Copenhagen regarding environment that we have made steps to

arrive at an outcome that can be said to be worthy of the

expectations of the concerned global citizenry with their active

involvement by conducting debates and seminars etc. on the very

same issue.

Developing Countries bearing the Brunt:

In today’s world, need for environmental protection cannot be

isolated to any one area or nation of the globe. It is a global

issue which needs to be addressed as such. Irrespective of the

development level of a country or its physical size, problem of

deteriorating environment concerns one and all. Despite of the

political division of earth into different countries with their

own right to sovereignty, the winds that blow over the countries

are one. An example to

illustrate how environmental degrading activities in one part of

the world affect the other parts is the case of Germany and

Switzerland. During a fire accident in a warehouse in

Switzerland, agricultural chemicals, solvents and mercury flowed

into the river Rhine. The impact of this was felt in Germany as

millions of fish were killed and drinking water sources were also

polluted. Examples such as these are manifold. The brunt of

pollution caused by developed countries over the years is being

felt by developing nations like India and entire south Asia. The

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its fourth

assessment report submitted in 2007 that the presence of green

house gases known as the culprit for rising global temperatures

like carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide has increased to

alarming levels such that never been seen before. Also the report

further states that one of the first countries to face adverse

changes in climate due to global warming will be India. The

consequences which shall ensue include droughts, famines, floods,

and tectonic movements. Catastrophic events just waiting to

happen. Extinction of valuable animal and plant species is also

another major effect of global warming.

Melting of glaciers would lead to a rise in sea levels which in

turn would lead to inundation of the coastal areas with flash

floods and the like giving further rise to mass spread epidemic

and in consequence death of millions of mankind. It is not that

the seriousness of the situation is unknown to the people in

power. But the problem remains that by the time our political

leaders

wake up to reach a solution to a problem, years have passed and

several disasters have already taken place. It is as if the value

of human life is of no significance whatsoever. 2010 has already

recorded the warmest temperature ever and the summer has just

begun. The problem goes deeper and then it remains limited to not

just environmental pollution but includes within itself all the

various situations which arise out of such degradation. Climate

Change has direct relation to the respective societies in

concern with problems in relation of water as relatively small

climatic changes can cause large water resource problems,

particularly in arid and semi-arid regions such as northwest

India, extreme temperature and heat spells, seasons like monsoon

get affected as decline in summer rainfall, also Indian

population being predominantly involved in agricultural

activities gets affected as even a small increase by 1?

C could increase the rate of evaporation by 5-15% with reduction

in rainfall, shortening on grain fill period leading to food

insecurity issues etc. Delayed monsoon causes failure of crop

leading to the situation of mass farmer suicides. Under extreme

indebtedness, the poor peasants dependent on the success of their

crop choose to end their life leaving their families behind to

fend for themselves. But the burden of responsibility for the

above can’t be shifted only to developing countries instead, it’s

the developed countries who have been emitting carbon-dioxide in

the earth’s atmosphere for years and later with the path of

development adopted by countries like India and China started

emitting the greenhouse effect gases trapped and cooling down at

low rate with protection of sun’s harmful UV rays.

After the signing of the Accord, the actual plight of the

developing countries has received global recognition. Several

developed nations including the US have pledged to give greater

financial and technological support to the poor countries

affected by the rise in global warming. Only with greater

development can these countries like India hope to solve

environmental issues. The aim is to achieve a balance between

environment and development without adversely

affecting the growth of either as both are essential for

continuance of the human race on Earth.

Indo-China Relations

What was the main surprise element of the Copenhagen Conference

was the strong alliance of the BASIC nations (Brazil, South

Africa, India and China). This bloc was formed after an agreement

signed between them on 28th November 2009. These four had agreed

to act jointly at the summit or to walk-out of the conference if

their proposals for minimum emission cuts were not agreed upon by

the developed nations of the world. However the good that came

out this alliance was the development of strong ties between

India and China dissolving the long- standing indifference almost

bordering on hostility between the two nations. Though the recent

controversy that arose about claims being made in China as to the

status of Arunachal Pradesh threatened to disturb the calm that

has existed on the borders of the two nations for so long, yet

due to the summit a new friendship it seems has been forged. This

definitely is

good news for India as strong Indo- China relations will increase

the India’s status in the world. China is one of the rising super

powers and maintaining good relations with neighbors has always

been an integral part of India’s foreign policy. In today’s times

both the nations need peace and stability and are interested in

development. Fostering of bilateral ties between them will lead

to new prospects and opportunities for the citizens of both the

nations.

This year is historic in the growth of India – China relations as

it marks the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic

relations. Thus the Copenhagen accord brought out the position of

India in the world community. It made the developed countries to

sit up and notice the emerging potential of the Indian markets

and it was soon was evident that India would not be ignored

anymore. Also, the openness of china for a new relation with

India based on mutual interest puts the future of India on an

altogether different plane. These two countries together shall

put the Asian community on the global map and also it will

further accelerate the fulfillment of the long desired goal of

India of becoming a super – power.

Negotiation Difficulties: Pressure on Developed Countries and

Kyoto protocol

International negotiations to deal with the global warming

problem are currently posing problems because countries like US

are refusing to take responsibility for contribution to the

global warming problem as they are afraid it will affect their

economies and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) percentage or for

that matter their progress. Instead, they politically pressurize

developing countries like India to take ‘meaningful’ action and

equal measures as per their own i.e. developed countries

‘precautionary principles’. The differences between developed and

developing countries can be made when we talk about the per

capita emissions of carbon-dioxide. In 1996, the emissions of one

US citizen were equal to 19 Indians, 30 Pakistanis, 17

Maldivians, 19 Sri Lankans, 107 Bangladeshis, 134 Bhutanese or

269 Nepalese.

This is because of their lifestyle, due to which emission by

industrialized countries is termed as ’luxury emissions’. But the

lower per Capita emissions of developing countries are because a

large number of poor people do not even have access to basic

amenities. Therefore, they will need share of ecological space to

increase, which belongs to them and can be termed as ‘survival

emissions’. Hence, richer countries have to decrease their per

capita emissions

and to deal with it the Kyoto Protocol on 11th December, 1997,

adopted under the Article-3 of Framework Convention on Climate

Change, which lists the principles of:

Benefits of present and future generations

Equity, and

Common but differentiated responsibilities and respective

capabilities of nations.

According to the protocol, adopted under the FCCC in 1997, a

timetable was laid down for

industrialized countries to reduce their GHG emissions. According

to the protocol, industrialized countries had to decrease their

emissions at least 5.2% compared to 1990 emission levels, by the

2008-2012 periods. Now, with these objectives industrialized

countries want to save their shimmery, sparkling skin as it’s

developed in all aspects so all they want is ‘meaningful

participation’ of developing countries like BASIC, this is all

because US wanted to be on the safe side, protecting their

economy. They are afraid that industries, jobs, developed status

will move from them to others like China, India etc. But the

condition of reduction in levels of emission of carbon dioxide is

like asking them to freeze at their current level of development.

This amounts to static global inequality, by accepting that some

same countries will always be more developed than others in the

world. Therefore, all that US have done is that, to be sure to

meet the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol in the cheapest ways,

without compromising its economy and pushing the Flexibility

mechanism and the Clean Development Mechanism towards developing

countries. Under this development whereas, countries like US play

safe with minimum reduction in per capita and enjoying the perks

as mentioned above. Equitable sharing of ‘atmospheric space’ has

become a critical issue especially for countries like- India,

China etc. for their future growth. Seeing the scenario, the

issue of Global warming was dealt worldwide along with active

participation across the globe and addressing the very same,

giving it an international platform.

Building on these lines 15th Conference of parties in Copenhagen

was to enhance the long-term cooperation on Climate Change and

India is resisting the call by developed countries to take on

specific targets for reduction of emission which has increased

alarmingly, over the past decades because of developed countries.

Therefore, UNFCCC itself should not require the developing

countries to allow per capita GHG emissions to exceed the average

per capita emissions of the developed countries and the reduction

should also be only there for the developed countries as was

mentioned in the so-called Annexure-I countries, recognized in

the Kyoto Protocol Policy criticized by developed countries like

US, Russia etc. by saying that this action is very different from

binding International commitments.

An International agreement is to promote ` National interest of

the respective parties and not merely a collation of nationally

determined steps. Therefore, inability to reach certain targets

of renewable energies under a national plan will have all

together a different consequence on an international agreement.

Signing Copenhagen by India and China, have attracted lot of

criticisms from other developing countries as a shameful act

increasing the whirl of anger not only

surrendering ourselves to the US Imperialism and the terms of

agreement, also

the secrecy way adopted by the terms, indicating lack of

democratic principles. The agreement mentions no legally binding

emission cuts for industrialized countries, hence letting them go

by

their own ways. Given the fact that prior conference, many other

industrialized countries had promised reductions (The European

Union for instance had unilaterally agreed to reduce its emission

by 20%, and the UK by 40%), it is clear that the US arrogance has

come to light. Thus, more importantly developing countries like

India have been given an option to voluntarily reduce in emission

of GHG which indirectly eliminates the distinct margin between

the developed and developing countries. Again India should make

an effort to reduce the emission not in competition with

developed countries of course but because, we Indians do care

about the ecological balance around us and not because US has

asked us to do so, simultaneously with funding and renewable

technology, an aid from industrialized countries which is very

essential for following the path of Sustainable development. On

the other hand, developed countries by sending eminent

personalities to India and convince it’s people has always

built political pressure and in turn, we consider them the

neighbors who’ll guide us, instead they tend to take undue

advantage of developing countries like India and achieve their

own prosperity fulfilling their motives.

Environmental issues are to be dealt with mutual cooperation and

understanding. The protection of human environment is a major

issue which affects the well being of people and economic

development throughout the world. It has become an imperative

goal for the entire mankind to defend and improve the natural

environment. This goal cannot be achieved alone. It has to be

pursued in harmony with the established goals of peace and of

word-wide economic and social development. At every level in the

community down to the basic level of

the common man, a sense of responsibility has to be cultivated

towards Mother Nature without any consideration for fulfilling

our selfish vested interests.

Though the world has been segregated into different continents

which are further divided into nations and states, these

differences must not deter us accepting our role towards

fulfillment of the common aim of saving our race from total

annihilation. In order to work out a final solution for saving

the planet, we must look into the eyes of the starving masses

affected by the fury of nature punishing us for our silent crimes

towards it in destroying its fragility and then there shall be no

further need for any negotiations or discussions, only

implementation of the long known solutions.

Copenhagen Climate Change

Conference - December 2009

The Copenhagen Accord

The 15th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC

and the 5th session of the Conference of the Parties serving as

the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol took place in

Copenhagen and was hosted by the Government of Denmark. Also

sitting were the thirty-first sessions of the Subsidiary Body for

Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and

Technological Advice (SBSTA), the tenth session of the Ad hoc

Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under

the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP), and the eighth session of the Ad hoc

Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the

Convention (AWG-LCA).

The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference raised climate change

policy to the highest political level. Close to 115 world leaders

attended the high-level segment, making it one of the largest

gatherings of world leaders ever outside UN headquarters in New

York. More than 40,000 people, representing governments,

nongovernmental organizations, intergovernmental organizations,

faith-based organizations, media and UN agencies applied for

accreditation.

COP 15 / CMP 5 was a crucial event in the negotiating process.

It significantly advanced the negotiations on the infrastructure needed for

effective global climate change cooperation, including improvements to the

Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol.

Significant progress was made in narrowing down options and clarifying

choices needed to be made on key issues later on in the negotiations.

It produced the Copenhagen Accord, which expressed clear a political intent

to constrain carbon and respond to climate change, in both the short and

long term.

The Copenhagen Accord contained several key elements on which

there was strong convergence of the views of governments. This

included the long-term goal of limiting the maximum global

average temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees Celsius

above pre-industrial levels, subject to a review in 2015. There

was, however, no agreement on how to do this in practical terms.

It also included a reference to consider limiting the temperature

increase to below 1.5 degrees - a key demand made by vulnerable

developing countries. Other central elements included:

Developed countries' promises to fund actions to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the inevitable

effects of climate change in developing countries. Developed

countries promised to provide US$30 billion for the period 2010-2012, and to

mobilize long-term finance of a further US$100 billion a year by 2020 from a

variety of sources.

Agreement on the measurement, reporting and verification of

developing country actions, including a reference to "international

consultation and analysis", which had yet to be defined.

The establishment of four new bodies: a mechanism on REDD-plus,

a High-Level Panel under the COP to study implementation of financial

provisions, the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund, and a Technology

Mechanism.

The work of the two central negotiating groups, the AWG-LCA and

the AWG-KP was extended by the COP.

ConclusionOn 18 December after a day of frantic negotiations between heads

of state, it was announced that a "meaningful agreement" had been

reached between on one hand the United States and on the other,

in a united position as the BASIC countries (China, South

Africa, India, and Brazil). An unnamed US government official was

reported as saying that the deal was a "historic step forward"

but was not enough to prevent dangerous climate change in the

future. However, the BBC's environment correspondent said: "While

the White House was announcing the agreement, many other –

perhaps most other – delegations had not even seen it. A comment

from a UK official suggested the text was not yet final and the

Bolivian delegation has already complained about the way it was

reached – 'anti-democratic, anti-transparent and unacceptable'.

With no firm target for limiting the global temperature rise, no

commitment to a legal treaty and no target year for peaking

emissions, countries most vulnerable to climate impacts have not

got the deal they wanted." The use of "meaningful" in the

announcement was viewed as being political spin by an editorial

in The Guardian.

Early on Saturday 19 December, delegates approved a motion to

"take note of the Copenhagen Accord of December 18, 2009". This

was due to the opposition of countries such

as Bolivia, Venezuela, Sudan and Tuvalu who registered their

opposition to both the targets and process by which the

Copenhagen Accord was reached. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-

moon welcomed the US-backed climate deal as an "essential

beginning" however debate has remained as to the exact legal

nature of the Accord. The Copenhagen Accord recognises the

scientific case for keeping temperature rises below 2 °C, but

does not contain a baseline for this target, nor commitments for

reduced emissions that would be necessary to achieve the target.

One part of the agreement pledges US$30 billion to the developing

world over the next three years, rising to US$100 billion per

year by 2020, to help poor countries adapt to climate change.

Earlier proposals, that would have aimed to limit temperature

rises to 1.5 °C and cut CO

2 emissions by 80% by 2050 were dropped. The Accord also favors

developed countries' paying developing countries to reduce

emissions from deforestation and degradation, known as

"REDD". The agreement made was non-binding but US President Obama

said that countries could show the world their achievements. He

said that if they had waited for a binding agreement, no progress

would have been made.

Many countries and non-governmental organisations were opposed to

this agreement, but, throughout 2010, 138 countries had either

formally signed on to agreement or signaled they would. Tony

Tujan of the IBON Foundation suggests the perceived failure of

Copenhagen may prove useful, if it allows people to unravel some

of the underlying misconceptions and work towards a new, more

holistic view of things. This could help gain the support of

developing countries. Malta's Ambassador for Climate Change,

Michael Zammit Cutajar, extends this to suggest "the shock has

made people more open to dialogue"