While the world is watching over the future course of actions the world leaders might agree to take on the issue of climate change two emerging players in the International community, India and China came forward with pointed thoughts on the issue. China has listed five points for wealthy countries to act on emission control. These points included a system for encouraging investment that cut poor-country emissions and share technology.
India, on the other hand, talked about a legislation it was creating to cut down its own emissions from power plants, agriculture, buildings, transportation and heavy industry.
Both India and China have been accused of not doing enough to cut carbon emissions. But these countries demand that rich nations must act decisively to their parts before taking poor countries on board.
Meetings between world leaders are currently going on to reach a consensus of climate change in the summit that is scheduled to be held in December in Copenhagen. The progress on climate negotiation is slow and a possible deal is not in sight. Still global warming is not going to wait for world leaders to agree or disagree. The world must be saved from an ecological disaster.
Undoubtedly, investment in energy efficiency and low-carbon energy sources will reduce dependence on oil and drive the economy. The investors in this sector need to be encouraged through a mutually agreed international climate regulation.
British Prime Minister recently came out with a significant proposal. He wants to bring poor countries on board by initiating a $100 billion program that would by financed by wealthier countries and the private sector. The program will help poorer nations develop low-carbon economies.
“ We must move toward resolving the issues that remain before Copenhagen. If it is necessary to secure agreement, I will personally go to Copenhagen to achieve it. I will be urging my fellow leaders to do the same”, he confirmed his commitment to a consensus on climate change.
Gordon advocates a common economic goal to establish a new system of governance. To achieve this a clear commitment from the Group of 20 is needed to provide a framework for jobs, growth and stability over the medium to long term — one that perhaps even includes objectives for global growth.
It is interesting to note how far India can go to demonstrate to the world its commitment for curbing carbon emission. India has reaffirmed its commitment to develop solar energy as a renewable means of bringing electricity to more than 400 million people now living without it. India's opposition parties needed to understand the cost of depleting the ozone layer if environment friendly industries are not developed. The opposition parties in India are adverse to compromises that could sacrifice development.
At this moment world leaders must overcome their narrow international interests and help negotiators to finalize a deal before the Copenhagen summit.
The stage has been set at the United Nations where high-level summit meetings aimed at reaching consensus are expected to bring the world temperature to 2 degrees Fahrenheit below the current rate of global warming. It is encouraging to note that the developing countries have agreed on the need to mitigate their emissions, but a mandatory limit has been rejected if no financial or technical support came forth from wealthy nations.
In this respect Europe and United States widely disagree with each other. Europe is willing to donate $2 billion to $15 billion a year for the next decade to help less developed nations adapt to climate change. The Obama administration has not offered anything close. The Europeans also want binding, near-term targets for developed nations. Bush administration had rejected the Kyoto Protocol because it did not set limits on emissions from China and other major developing nations. Under Obama the United States stand a chance to correct mistakes of the previous administration. However, US is not supportive of any international treaties, but would rather enact its own domestic legislation.
The United States and China must reach a consensus on curbing emission, as the both account for about 40 percent of world emissions.
Cautioning the world and especially USA, Nobel prize winner Princeton economist, Paul Krugman recently said in his column in the New York Times, “It’s important to understand that claims of immense economic damage from climate legislation are as bogus, in their own way, as climate-change denial. Saving the planet won’t come free (although the early stages of conservation actually might). But it won’t cost all that much either.”
Krugman suggests that US is “burning large amounts of coal, oil and gas in ways that don’t actually enhance our standard of living — a phenomenon known in the research literature as the “energy-efficiency gap.” The existence of this gap suggests that policies promoting energy conservation could, up to a point, actually make consumers richer.
“Second, the best available economic analyses suggest that even deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would impose only modest costs on the average family.”
Krugman calculated the great burden on American public if emissions were not limited. “By 2050, when the emissions limit would be much tighter, the burden would rise to 1.2 percent of income.”
Experts agree that the US can lead the world in reaching an agreement on climate change under President Obama.
No comments:
Post a Comment