India Environment Portal

For growing economies the stress has to be on patterns of natural resource use and not on the status of natural resources; that is, dealing with the causes rather than the symptoms of the problem of climate change. The time has come for rapidly growing Asia to distinguish between the global, regional and national aspects of climate policy, recognize the linkages and shape the deliberations for the new climate regime by taking substantive measures at home.

Very different global rules are needed for human wellbeing

Averting climate change does not need emission reduction pledges, timetables and a common legal framework.

What you measure determines policy

Another round of the annual climate meetings is going to take place and the most ambitious outcome will be limited negotiations on some elements, because there is as yet no shared vision of the problem and what to do about it.

The task for global governance in dealing with climate change is to focus on the interconnectedness between carbon dioxide emissions, standards of living and global ecological limits. The interdependence between countries makes the global commons, or carbon sinks, a shared economic resource as well as an unprecedented global environmental crisis, because economic growth worldwide increases the atmospheric concentration of energy-trapping gases, thereby amplifying the natural "greenhouse effect" that makes the Earth habitable.

The new climate regime will lead to commitments only for developing countries, because the United States, which did not ratify the legally binding commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, continues to insist on a framework with nationally determined emissions reductions monitored at the global level. The unresolved issue is multilateral agreement, on the basis of a political decision, when one criterion does not suit all countries.

The underlying issue is not trade rules but the global climate regime

The concerted opposition to the EU push towards forcing foreign airlines landing in Europe to become a part of its emissions trading scheme has led to an unexpected development, whose implications extend to setting the global climate agenda.

The theme of the Rio + 20 Conference was "Green economy in the context of sustainable development and eradication of poverty" and it has not been possible to the find common ground in the serious differences over what constitute economic growth and human wellbeing – ‘the future we want’. Humans have always altered their natural environment, what is new is that the adverse effects of economic activities exceed those of resource extraction. Soon the Earth will not be able to absorb the carbon dioxide generated by excessive consumption.

The significance of Rio + 20 does not lie in any document but in the new direction provided to global governance, whose focus should be on patterns of natural resource use, and not just on natural capital, to ensure human well being.

Background

Balancing national strategic interests and global concerns requires new rules for collective action

The upcoming sequel to the 1992 Earth Summit, once again to be held in Brazil, will provide fresh opportunities to draft a common global agenda to safeguard the well-being of humanity -- and the planet. But serious differences over what constitutes economic growth and human wellbeing may lead to a less-than-successful outcome.

The climate negotiations have finally begun to focus on the criteria for reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases to be agreed by 2015, and new pitfalls have emerged.

As all countries take actions to reduce emissions the unresolved question is to what extent fairness will be the basis for international cooperation

The key issue is not defining equity but determining whether climate change is a sustainable development or an environmental challenge

A workshop on ‘Equitable access to Sustainable Development’ is to be held in Bonn in May as part of the negotiating process for a new arrangement on global climate change. The treatment of equity in a global approach continues to be an unresolved and divisive issue, because the approach of all counties seeks to define an elusive concept, equity, and tweak a failing system arrived at in 1992 rather than develop a vision for 2032.

Is climate change a sustainable development or an environmental challenge?

Preparations for the Rio+20 United Nations conference on sustainable development have begun, but the first round of preparatory meetings did not address important issues such as sustainable resource use, production and consumption.

The time has come to develop a national consensus, define the national position and determine red lines for future negotiations, otherwise we risk endangering our future growth prospects.

Developing countries must guard against a repeat of the situation at Copenhagen, where negotiations under the UNFCCC were deliberately stalled, and Heads of State/Ministers from developing countries were pressured to agree to “something” to save the climate regime from collapse.

It is in the interest of developing countries to agree to legally binding national emission limits alone to secure their fair share of the global carbon budget.