Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh on Tuesday accepted India deviated from its original stand on international verification of emission mitigation actions but said, “It will not affect India’s sovereignty”.
By signing the Copenhagen Accord, India has agreed to “international
consultations” and “analysis” of its domestic mitigation efforts.
“We allowed it but did not accept review, scrutiny and verification asked by (US President Barack) Obama. We suggested consultation and analysis to which he agreed,” Ramesh said.
He also downplayed comments of White House senior adviser David Axelrod, that the Copenhagen Accord had committed India to international verification, saying the remarks were that of a “spin doctor” aimed at domestic consumption.
But Axelrod was the least of Ramesh’s worries on Tuesday as he faced an aggressive opposition in the Rajya Sabha — where the minister was making a statement on talks in Copenhagen — and sceptical climate experts outside.
“Not wanting to be consider-ed the fall guy and wanting to please someone, we allowed our interests to fall,” said Leader of Opposition Arun Jaitley.
“Rich countries came out as winners from Copenhagen,” said Sunita Narain, director of Cen-tre for Science and Environment, “They made us agree to too much without giving away a handful.”
So, what did India give away, or didn’t?
Before leaving for Copen-hagen on December 11, Ramesh told Parliament India will resist any attempt to force it to accept international verification of its emission mitigation efforts.
But by signing the accord, India did concede some ground.
International verification would bring UN inspectors marching in to verify each or any mitigation action claimed by India — cutting emissions at the Badarpur power station in Delhi, for instance.
“International consultations”, on the other hand, means Indian claims will only be questioned and analysed, but politely, without threat of legal action.
But the opposition wasn’t buying. Isn’t “international consultation” a pseudonym for a legally binding condition being imposed on India relating to emission cuts, asked CPM’s Sitaram Yechury.
Ramesh didn’t agree. “It was part of our flexible approach,” he said. Besides, he added, consultation takes place routinely on information provided to the WTO and IMF. Implying therefore, why refuse consultation on emission mitigation then?
The minister also said India was very much with the poorer nations and there was a difference in targets. While India and China were looking to work towards ensuring warming did not exceed 2ºC by 2050, the small island nations were pressing for 1.5ºC.
A target of 2ºC allows India a few decades of economic development free of emission worries. But 1.5ºC would force India to start cutting emissions right away.