Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh told Parliament on Tuesday that he was not deviating from India’s stated position on climate change.
On the contrary, he had tried his best to ensure that India negotiates from a position of strength and did not “earn the reputation of being a deal breaker” at climate negotiations, Ramesh said.
“I have not deviated from the stated position of the country... But my point is that India should not be isolated like Brazil, South Korea and Indonesia that have already announced cuts in emission reduction.”
Ramesh was replying to a Calling Attention Motion by members Brinda Karat, Moiunul Hassan and N.K. Singh on the ‘government’s changing position on climate change’.
Singh made a coherent argument that since the government’s position had been “less than consistent” some key factors had to be kept in mind.
“Defining obligations in terms of per capita emission differentials is both ethical and expeditious. While we may not be a major contributor to the stock but an increasingly significant player in the flow of emission given growth compulsions cannot be overlooked.”
He said while common but differentiated responsibility’ was well accepted it would enable China more than India to get away with existing astronomical emission levels and its relentless accretion.
Singh said a consistent stance that international disclosures must be that technology and finance which become externally available cannot be too jealously protected.
He said the investment approach to mitigation recognises that there is a historic opportunity to invest in infrastructure for low carbon growth.
Singh said it was time to distinguish between who adjusted and who paid for it. “Developing countries can leap frog than retrofit. We should show imagination, innovative, create jobs and bargain to make others to pay for it.”
Singh said, “The dynamics of international negotiations always need flexibility. Developed countries have yet to demonstrate a seriousness of intent and coherence of action to persuade the poorer countries in accepting concomitant obligations. National interest must be paramount. However boxing ourselves in a corner cannot augur well for successful outcomes.”