
India blocking climate talks: Warsaw, Bangkok, and Kyoto negotiations - jseliger
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/energy_around_the_world/2013/11/india_blocking_climate_talks_warsaw_bangkok_and_kyoto_negotiations.single.html
======
cscurmudgeon
Logically speaking for India to reduce its total emissions one of two things
should happen: a huge number of people in India should die or Indians should
consume almost nothing (everything else being equal.)

I don't understand how anyone can fault India for its current stance given
that the state we are in was caused by the developed countries. The only way
anyone can fault India is by asserting that an Indian life is worth less than
a life in a developed country.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita)

This is like moving into a new house and being forced to pay for the damage
caused by the old tenants. And the old tenants are forcing you to pay for the
damage while they live across the street in a brand new house constructed by
stealing from the old place.

~~~
nickff
India has also been given opportunities never available to western countries
during their period of industrialization, such as access to a wide variety of
medicine and technology. I would just like it to be clear that India is in a
different situation than what many others were at comparable levels of
development.

~~~
tks2103
India was also colonized.

You aren't being unbiased when you point out medicine and technology, but not
colonialism.

~~~
dcc1
So was Ireland, were not doing too bad now, thank you

~~~
dredmorbius
And for anyone who discounts the affects of English dominion over Ireland,
look up the history of the Irish Potato Famine, during which _England
continued exports of grain and beef from Ireland to England._ This was while
_one million_ people died of starvation, and a million more emigrated (most to
the US and Canada), a fifth to a quarter of the island's population. A classic
case of distribution inequity. The implications in terms of home rule and
ongoing political strife between Ireland and England persist to the present
time.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_\(Ireland\))

Similar circumstances accompanied the Holodomor -- the Ukranian famine (then
part of the USSR) from 1932-1933 in which 2.4-7.5 million people died, _again_
while food was being _exported_ to support the Russian SSR.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ukrainian_famine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ukrainian_famine)

The point: history is rife with inequities. Addressing the problems we face
_now_ is going to have to involve setting those aside. I've speculated that it
might be literacy (allowing records of the inequities to be preserved) which
has a certain relationship with perpetrating the memory of such injustices
(though it's also been pointed out that ignorant societies can be mobilized by
demagogues).

In the instant case, I think it's fair for India to call for concessions by
industrialized nations, but it's ultimately self-defeating to pursue a
"growth" policy which will be anything but.

~~~
tks2103
The general point "history is rife with inequities" is not going to mean
anything to any developing nation. "History is rife with inequities" only
means something to rich westerners.

You are not going to get India on board by claiming Ireland had it just as
bad. India's GDP per capita is $1500. Ireland's is $45000. That's a factor of
30.

China is going to think the same way. They are going to see any bluster from
western countries about emissions as thinly veiled attacks on their ability to
industrialize. That's a perfectly reasonable opinion.

~~~
dredmorbius
_" history is rife with inequities" is not going to mean anything to any
developing nation._

There are plenty of developing nations with their own histories of conflict.
India and Pakistan come to mind. Much of Africa. Much of SE Asia and (take
your pick) Japan and/or China (I'm omitting the colonial cases of Britain,
France, the Netherlands, and the US here).

So: you're wearing LDC blinders. And my broader point is _we need to get over
this._ Not _ignore_ it, but get _over_ it.

~~~
tks2103
Just to be clear, we're talking in the context of emissions.

In the context of emissions, it's perfectly reasonable for a developing
country to say "Well, we were just colonized, so we're not really keen on
reducing our competitiveness to fix a problem you created" to a western
country. "History is rife with inequities", will not _mean anything_ to them.

And if you want to fix the problem of emissions, you need to understand that,
instead of just saying "Well these developing countries are sure being jerks
by blocking talks!"

What is an LDC blinder, btw?

~~~
dredmorbius
LDC: less-developed country. Blinder: inability to see (or acknowledge) an
issue. It's a case of being so vested in an un/underpriviledged mindset that
you justify or dismiss harmful actions on your own part.

Blocking talks (and I'll have to give the article / broader story a closer
read to see how accurate that is) is a dick move, plain and simple. _Making an
alternate proposal_ (and I'd be more than happy to consider normalizing CO2
emissions per capita as an alternative) would work for me.

When a significant aspect of the Slate article dealt _not with CO2 emissions
but with HFCs_ \-- hydroflourocarbons, used as refrigerants and themselves
potent and long-lived greenhouse gases -- it becomes rather more difficult to
pull the carbon / colonization card. Which is just what India are doing here.

You've gone on the attack against several people in this thread, largely on
the "India was oppressed" card. Not to put too fine a point on it: that's not
productive. If you want to introduce that fact into your debate, I'd suggest
finding an alternative argument.

~~~
tks2103
Seeming reasonable to people this thread is not a priority for India. Neither
is seeming reasonable to western countries. India wants to industrialize, and
they will do it any way they can.

If you care about emissions, you need to understand that. Saying that they are
making dick moves for making perfect reasonable, rational decisions given
their position will not be compelling to them.

~~~
dredmorbius
Wanting something alone won't make it so.

Mind: the industrialized Western nations need to learn this as well.

------
ashray
The problem with these talks are that from a developing country's perspective
it looks like developed nations used cheap energy to get ahead. Now they want
to curb usage of cheap energy in developing nations because:

1\. Suddenly, they're affected by climate change, or claim to be.

2\. It's just a ploy to increase energy costs for developing nations and keep
them behind.

This may or may not be true but with this kind of perception, such talks will
never go through. Also, there are choking levels of pollution in New Delhi [1]
and Beijing. The cities are _really_ uncomfortable, and there is a growing
body of research to show that air pollution is carcinogenic. [2]

These countries would do well to curb pollution and use clean energy just in
the interest of public health. Unfortunately, public health is very low on the
agenda.

New Delhi is on the brink of ecological collapse (or maybe beyond that
depending on the definition). There is no clean air, clean water, or clean
soil. There are no numbers to indicate how many pollution related deaths occur
in India annually or what kind of productivity is lost. Frankly, no one cares
either. Until someone is personally effected (in a drastic way, like NO2
poisoning and dropping dead..) there will be no change. A very large
percentage of children in New Delhi are diagnosed with asthma. [1]

Climate change is a far cry from getting discussed if domestic air pollution
isn't a cause for concern.

Source: I am Indian and spend a lot of time there quite often.

[1] - [http://bkpk.me/cigarettes-arent-that-bad-after-
all/](http://bkpk.me/cigarettes-arent-that-bad-after-all/)

[2] - [http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/17/health/geneva-air-
pollutio...](http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/17/health/geneva-air-pollution-
carcinogenic-who/)

~~~
AxisOfEval
Yeah. Bang on. That is how it is. Climb the ladder and then throw it away so
that others can't get to where you are.

That fact of the matter is that every economy goes through this cycle (of
growing up). Child labor, poor health-care, now pollution and soon patents.

While not being pertinent to this discussion, the country with the greatest
patent lobbying bodies is also the country that committed the greatest IPR
violations. More here:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQZJ5Jl41nk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQZJ5Jl41nk)

~~~
sliverstorm
It's not a perfect cycle. LA's terrible smog was not a result of _not caring_
, it was a result of the catalytic converter _not existing_.

Guess what, the catalytic converter exists now.

~~~
alan_cx
Was the smog was there before LA started pumping out pollution?

------
yetanotherphd
There is something almost colonialist about the way the arguments on the
Indian side are never given (although their motives are discussed in depth).

Last time I checked, both China and India argued that global emissions limits
should be done on a per-capita basis, and that therefore China and India
should not be obligated to reduce their emissions.

While there are arguments to be made against this claim (e.g. should China and
India be rewarded for their large populations?), it would be nice to see these
arguments being addressed directly, rather than assuming that non-Westerners
are only ever driven by base politics.

~~~
waps
Maybe this is realpolitik, but how about assuming everybody is only driven by
base politics.

Or how about anybody who isn't rich enough to have at least savings sufficient
for 6 months without any income (which is probably 98% of the planet) is only
ever driven by short-term politics.

------
sibinpthomas
A counter argument - [http://swaminomics.org/a-climate-summit-that-matters-
little/](http://swaminomics.org/a-climate-summit-that-matters-little/)

From the perspective of India or for that matter any developing nation
aspiring to free its people from the shackles of poverty the above argument is
commonsensical (sic) while the Slate article is condescending and biased in
favour of developed countries.

Excerpts from the above article -

 _Copenhagen hardly matters. If it doesn’t produce an agreement, it clearly
won’t matter. But even if it yields an agreement, that will matter very
little.

Why? Because reducing carbon emissions by 80% from the 1990 levels – the
target for 2050 for rich countries – depends on technological breakthroughs,
not political pledges at Copenhagen.

...

In the Kyoto treaty on climate change, 37 rich countries pledged to reduce
their carbon emissions to 5% below their 1990 level. But most actually
increased their emissions. These very treaty-breakers now propose another
treaty!

...

Despite climate uncertainties, it makes sense to mitigate emissions as
insurance against a disaster that may never happen. Treaties are often signed
to provide mutual insurance against political and economic risks. But if the
insurance premium becomes costly enough to threaten economic distress,
governments will abandon the treaties (a la Maastricht). No government will
create a recession today to avoid a future disaster that may not happen
anyway.

The lesson for Indian strategy at Copenhagen is clear. India should talk tough
and not worry about being called a deal-breaker. When a deal’s value is so
uncertain, it matters little whether it’s broken or not. India should keep its
commitments light, and be ready to jump ship if others do. Never assume that
others will actually implement climate pledges._

------
InclinedPlane
If CO2 emissions are truly an existential threat to the world's population
then, aside from other obvious steps, the wealthy countries of the world
should be subsidizing the adoption of carbon neutral energy sources in the
developing world. Asking the poor to forgo stepping up into affluence is too
much to ask and immoral in the extreme.

------
s-topper
Looking at these data:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita)

[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=USA+total+primary+energ...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=USA+total+primary+energy+consumption+vs.+GDP)

[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=USA+vs+India+coal+consu...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=USA+vs+India+coal+consumption)

USA should make do with one gas-guzzling truck less per person, instead of
bullshitting their pseudo-intellectual "green" preaching on India and China.

------
gygygy
_" Tiny" per-person carbon footprint compared to the west. _ 3rd highest.

And India is the problem?

------
rrrazdan
Lets leave aside everything else. One Indian's per capita emission should be
exactly equal to one American's per capita emission. Isn't that justice?

The world's per capita emission in 2010 was 3 times that of India. US emits 10
times more than us on a per capita basis. It befuddles me. HN please explain
how India is in the wrong here?

------
dredmorbius
The dilemma: the GDP growth of China and India are almost wholly accounted for
by increasing energy consumption, as I've detailed on G+:

[https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/LyQx8fcv...](https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/LyQx8fcvYBG)

You can see the relationship between GDP and energy via Wolfram+Alpha:

China:
[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=china+total+primary+ene...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=china+total+primary+energy+consumption+vs.+GDP)

India:
[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=india+total+primary+ene...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=india+total+primary+energy+consumption+vs.+GDP)

That said: the entire planet's got a bit of a problem, and the truth is that
growing the economies of China and India through yet _more_ increased fossil
fuel consumption (much of both nation's energy comes from the worst possible
source: coal), will have tremendously bad consequences.

Another factor is that the promise of economic growth has long stood in for
efforts to produce greater equity -- with a growing pie, a promise of a better
future can be made to all. When the pie stops growing (or even slows markedly)
that relief valve is no longer available. Worse, the dynamics of various
systems and institutions, _including liberal democratic ones_ (but also "free
market" systems) appear to behave pathologically under resource constraint
circumstances (not that non-democratic ones behave better in all cases). It's
a rather sticky problem (and for the record: I happen to like many of the
features of democratic and liberal institutions).

