Copenhagen Accord: U.S Perceptions on Transparency & Commitments

Copenhagen Accord:
U.S Perceptions on Transparency & Commitments

(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
______________________________________________________

The Obama Administration on Wednesday December 23, 2009 had emanated buoyancy on the transparency and sufficient data to facilitate for fairly evaluating whether countries are living up the commitments they made as per the Copenhagen Accord.

Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P J Crowley had declared on the sequence of events during the closing days of the Copenhagen Summit. He said . "One of the significant issues when the Secretary of State arrived in Copenhagen on Thursday (December 17, 2009)morning and worked through these issues during the day on Thursday and the President on Friday (December 18,2009) was in fact to make sure that there was a significant, verification aspect to the accord," Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P J Crowley said.

This declaration is to be appreciably noticed by members of BASIC BLOC who are part of the Copenhagen Accord. P.J.Crowley had said “We think at the end of the day, through some very intensive dialogue by the President and the Secretary with world leaders, that what emerged from Copenhagen in fact have -- has the kind of transparency and mechanisms so that in fact we can have access to data with -- not in an intrusive way, but just so we'll have sufficient transparency and access to data so that everyone can fairly evaluate whether countries are living up to their agreements,"

In fact these statements came out from Crowley as a clarification to a controversial statement from David Axelrod, Senior White House Advisor, to the CNN last week wherein he had said that the US would not only "review" the implementation of Copenhagen Accord by India and China, but also would challenge New Delhi and Beijing if they do not meet the goals set by the agreement reached by the leaders of these countries at Copenhagen.

Preserve Copenhagen’s spirit for endearing at Mexico

Preserve Copenhagen’s spirit for endearing at Mexico

(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
_____________________________________________________

U.S President Barrack Obama had an interview with the PBS Newshour programme in which he had openly admitted that "I think that people are justified in being disappointed about the outcome in Copenhagen." According to him, at least he was able to secure non-binding agreements from what he called world’s would be largest emitters, India and China!

He said "What I said was essentially that rather than see a complete collapse in Copenhagen, in which nothing at all got done and would have been a huge backward step, at least we kind of held ground and there wasn't too much backsliding from where we were."

The climate change conference held over the past two weeks in the Danish capital concluded by an Accord, a legally non-binding agreement that skeptical observers believe that it is unlikely to limit emissions sufficiently to halt global warming.

"The science says that we've got to significantly reduce emissions over the next 40 years. There's nothing in the Copenhagen agreement that ensures that that happens," Obama had acknowledged it.

The US President who had attended the summit in its final days to push for a comprehensive agreement, said the deal established an "important principle" but also admitted: "It didn't move us the way we need to."

He said the agreement was hard to win, and came after talks nearly broke down entirely. "The prime minister of India was heading to the airport and the Chinese representatives were essentially skipping negotiations," he said.

Being a person who have kept abreast with the developments of the summit on a day to day basis, I thought it fit to request Obama and all international leaders not to high-light more on the flaws on it’s outcome as each and every nation either directly or indirectly were responsible for the same.

Let me put forth the following for their kind perusal:

The main imperfection in the legally non-binding Accord arrived at the hurriedly concluded Climate Summit was nothing other than one of the missed-out critical points which should have incorporated as a thrust in case a legally binding would have become a reality; it is that the Obama and leaders of Basic Bloc had to ignore in the Accord to commit to a deadline of 2010 for a legally binding global treaty. Further in the last phase of the summit, E.U not only perplexed themselves and made others like African-Island nations to get confused and pre-determined that there will be a just a blemished declaration through the camp of Basic Bloc at the summit.
The global community should not give much credence to the British Environment Minister Ed Milibands’ accusation that China had ‘hijacked’ efforts to agree to significant reductions in global emissions, which tempted Beijing to counter-accuse that U.K and other E.U nations plotted to divide the G77 and basic Bloc at Copenhagen. Fantastic… Obama maintained cool… did not directly accuse any nation or group!

Obama had commented that people are justified in disappointing on the outcome of the Copenhagen Summit. I would like to say like this…. there will be no harm….he and leaders of the Basic Bloc have to positively brag on the subject to motivate themselves and muster support for the mission of getting a legally binding Treaty in the summit to be held next at Mexico City.

Citing too much on the draw-backs of the Accord at Copenhagen should not only dishearten the world community but also disintegrate whatsoever small sketches of mutual understandings and trust gained at Copenhagen. World leaders should not abscond from the spirit gained from Copenhagen and have to remember that the world will slowly get united when each group attempts to take note of grievances of the rival group with a positive mindset.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An ingenious swerve around Western Perceptions on Climate Change?

An ingenious swerve around Western Perceptions on Climate Change?
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
_____________________________________________________

Government on Tuesday rejected Opposition charge of compromising with the country's interests at Copenhagen climate meet, insisting that the Accord will in no way affect India's sovereignty.

The Copenhagen Accord on Climate Change is no “sell-out” as far as India is concerned, Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh assured the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday, in response to the Opposition charge that it compromised the nation’s interests.

Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, while informing the Rajya Sabha on the outcome of last week's Climate Summit, however, admitted that the government had digressed from its pre-Copenhagen assurance given to Parliament ,allowed the provision for "international consultation and analysis" rather than just informing the UNFCCC about domestic mitigation programmes.
He said the decision to this effect was taken collectively by Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC nations) which did not want to be responsible for the failure of the summit and become “blame boys.” “I plead guilty. I moved from information to consultation. [But] there has to be flexibility.”

The Minister asserted that the accord will in no way affect India’s sovereignty as clear guidelines would be evolved. “The guidelines for international consultations and analysis will be devised and defined in due course. We have been able to incorporate a specific provision that these clearly defined guidelines will ensure that the national sovereignty is respected.”

"I plead guilty. I moved from information to consultation. Yes, there has been a shift," Ramesh said responding to Leader of Opposition Arun Jaitley's contention that government had digressed from its commitment on reporting of mitigation actions on climate change.
Equating the Copenhagen Accord with Sharm-el Sheikh Indo-Pak Joint Statement, Jaitley had said the government was trying to interpret the Accord differently by engaging in "spin doctoring".

"These clearly defined guidelines will ensure that the national sovereignty is respected," he said, adding India will ensure that the consultative process is not "intrusive". Normally there will not be any issue on international measurement; reporting and verification (MRV) on projects funded by foreign donors but will never agree for foreign inspection on domestic mitigation projects when submitted on the floor of the House.

The indigenous mitigation projects were to be reported to the United Nation as a part of India’s national communication every two years. A clear diversion in the Copenhagen Accord, therefore, worries many. According to Pradipto Ghosh, a former Union environment secretary and a member of the Indian negotiating team, it was an “extremely difficult and contentious” issue. “The most difficult and contentious task will be finalisation of the guidelines for international consultation and analysis of the mitigation actions while respecting national sovereignty,” Ghosh said.Rajya Sabha Leader of Opposition Arun Jaitley said that in a clear violation of the UN principles the Copenhagen Accord attempted “to obliterate the distinction between supported and unsupported verification.” Similar sentiments were echoed by CPM’s Sitaram Yechury who was part of an Indian delegation.Arun Jaitley had said that there was complete repugnancy between the obligations under the Copenhagen Accord and the Kyoto Protocol. As “Word by word, phrase by phrase the language of the UNFCCC, Bali Action Plan and Kyoto Protocol stands diluted. Obviously, the Copenhagen Accord is the one which will prevail.”

Jairam Ramesh said that India had to relent because the US had insisted on a transparency clause before agreeing to release funds to India’s neighbours like Bangladesh and Maldives. “Transparency clause is directed at China which emits 23 per cent of the world’s total greenhouse gases. Nobody has anything against India,” he said. Ramesh brushed aside apprehensions, arguing that the negotiations, expected to culminate in mexico city, would not undermine India’s sovereignty.

The US wanted words like ‘scrutiny’, ‘review’ and ‘verification’, which was resisted by the BASIC group. BASIC’s suggestion to use ‘dialogue’ or ‘discussion’ was not acceptable to the US. Both sides finally agreed on the clause on “international consultation and analysis.” “India has been holding consultations with the WTO and the IMF for years. There is no erosion of sovereignty. We should not fear the clause as there is no great sell out,” Ramesh clarified.

The Copenhagen accord sparked a heated debate in the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday December 21,2009. The opposition’s criticism identified it as “disappointing" and "a compromise-document."Jairam Ramesh reiterated that the accord and the International consultation on climate action it entails will not affect the sovereignty of India.

The opposition had been making hue and cry while expressing concern on the Accord , the contour of which were described in a suo motu statement made by Union Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh.

Sitaram Yechury called the Accord a “compromised document”.said, “we have opened up windows for the possible jettisoning of the Kyoto Protocol.”

By accepting for the international consultation and analysis of mitigation actions,he remarked that it will be a reframing of measures for reporting and verification and if any developing nation violates the same will be susceptible to face trade sanctions in future.
Yechury described the financial commitments under the accord is vague, and the Intellectual Property Rights regime on ‘Technology Transfer’ was effectively negated in the accord.
D. Raja described the Accord for being “no step forward and several steps backward.” And is an attempt to kill the Kyoto Protocol!

The BJP, the CPI(M) and the CPI described the accord as “several steps backward!"

Jairam Ramesh had said “Our thinking on climate change has to evolve and not remain frozen in time“ in the Rajya Sabha. Political Analysts believe that his Ramesh’s obscure statement whether deliberately intended or not, may be a signal that the current Indian government is becoming more futuristically conscious and dynamic while it could be swerving around the perception of developed nations on the responsibility of growing economies toward emission cuts. Jairam Ramesh’s statement on the back-drop of the deal that struck with U.S on the concluding day of the Copenhagen summit may be a relevant proof for the subtle shift of the climate policy of India and other the developing nations!

Seeking “flexibility within a framework of certain non-negotiable,” Ramesh said that the Copenhagen summit was “not a destination but the beginning of a long process”

Less than week after the climate conference ended, many analysts not only believe that Copenhagen was a failure but they apprehend that the summit may lead to a new climate order deviating from the path charted by the Kyoto Protocol.

Now we have many a number of forward thinking people in our great nation; let them judge who is thinking forward and who are not yet?

Copenhagen Adds Value To Obama in U.S

Copenhagen Adds Value To Obama in U.S
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
__________________________________________________________

The crucial Copenhagen climate conference might have failed as it did not resulted in a consensus despite President Barack Obama's presence at the summit but his attempts that brokered a US-BASIC political deal was hailed by Congress leaders here as "commendable".

Top Congressional leaders praised Obama for reaching a "breakthrough" agreement with China, India, Brazil and South Africa but said this is just a beginning to advance climate change objectives. "The President's personal involvement, and the efforts of Secretary (Hillary) Clinton and her negotiating team, have been extremely focused and commendable," House Majority Leader Steny H Hoyer said.

US brokered a political deal with India and three other emerging economies over non-legally-binding emission cuts which was rejected by an overwhelming number of developing nations which called it one-sided and "suicidal".

However, Congress leaders, in their initial reactions said the "breakthrough," including transparency measures, a mitigation target of two degree Celsius and a financing mechanism, was "an important step forward that lays a key marker both in the global fight against climate change and in US participation in such efforts".

As consensus for a deal to tackle climate change eluded the 12-day Conference of Parties (COP), Obama pushed for a pact during parleys that went down to the wire.
Terming it as a bold agreement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said this will help secure a safer, cleaner and more prosperous future for the world.

"This Copenhagen Accord was made possible by strong US leadership and recent investments in our national energy policies. This agreement was also aided by constructive engagement with the world community a result of President Obama's leadership," he said.

This is a significant and historic agreement, but there is more negotiating and trust building to do before there is a treaty for the Senate to review," Reid said.

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, said: "The agreement... could not have been reached without President Obama's active involvement and leadership".

Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said for the first time, the world's major emitting countries, including China and India, have committed to specific actions to cut emissions. American leadership, especially Obama's personal engagement, fundamentally changed the dynamic at the global warming talks, she said.

With Obama on his way back from Copenhagen, the American media said the deal falls short of key goals, even though it could be considered as a breakthrough by some. "The deal falls far short of many countries' expectations for the summit and leaves a comprehensive battle plan for climate change potentially years away," said The Washington Post in its news dispatch from Copenhagen.

The Wall Street Journal said Obama's very presence made a "significant breakthrough a political imperative, no matter how flimsy".

"The agreement addresses many of the issues that leaders came here to settle. But it has left many of the participants in the climate talks unhappy, from the Europeans, who now have the only binding carbon control regime in the world, to the delegates from the poorest nations, who objected to being left out of the critical negotiations," The New York Times said.

The Post said, the deal, under which each country needs only to list its current domestic pledges for emissions reductions and to promise to allow monitoring of their progress, sparked a rebellion among vulnerable nations. "No doubt under the agreement China will continue to get a free climate pass despite its role as the world's No 1 emitter," it said.

The accord, The New York Times, said provides a system for monitoring and reporting progress toward national pollution reduction goals, a compromise on an issue over which China bargained hard.

"But it was an equivocal agreement that was, to many, a disappointing conclusion to a two-year process that had the goal of producing a comprehensive and enforceable action plan for addressing dangerous changes to the global climate," it said.

Finall we all can say that Obama administraion is also a benificiary of the Accord!

Climategate Scandal and Republican Threat

Climategate Scandal and Republican Threat
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)

___________________________________________________________

When hackers gained access to the documents of the climate research centre of UK-based East Anglia University and leaked confidential data, including thousands of emails and documents between UK and US scientists over the past 10 years have led to accusations that scientists exaggerated the crisis.

Aftermath of the ‘Climate gate’ scandal a major threat has emerged out from United States, when the Sarah Palin the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president and governor of Alaska from 2006 to 2009 reinforced criticisms against the summit with the support of these fresh rumours. Her contention is that these e-mails revealed leading climate experts’ deliberately destroying records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. The Rupublicians now slam President Barack Osama’s proposal very serious cut of long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and unbearable energy costs!

“Mr President, don’t make promises in Copenhagen that we can’t keep,” Republican Congressman Mike Pence told a news conference along with six of his colleagues. They explained on their stand by explaining on the worst recession U.S is entangled into, the exposure of questionable science by email-scandal which intensified the revulsion for the consensus on climate change.

They accused that America has lost a lot of credibility when then Vice President Al Gore promised in Kyoto something he knew could never be passed by the US Congress now! As per their version President Obama will be just repeating the same mistake.
What a plight of the democracy in U.S when Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming who came forward to serve his nation and the world!

He wants UN not make any concrete recommendations until it gets to the bottom of the email-scandal and said “This could be a conspiracy basically to shut out any contrary scientific opinion. We should not be making decisions that will cost the American rate payer billions or even trillions of dollars in higher electric and natural gas bills based upon scientific Fascism”

I suspect that that Republican leaders wants to outsmart for political ends and attempt to dilute the nerve of American initiative under Obama’s leadership in global affairs. This Anti-Obama factor plays a role behind the screen at Copenhagen.They call the mail -scandal as ‘Scientific Fascism’ and urges President Obama to backpedal arguing that there is no consensus favouring for it. In fact the Republicans are fascists expecting Americans to wear iron clad and keep isolated from the rest of the world! Too much of disgrace on their out-look of Internationalism. It is evident that even in U.S, Opposition is becoming more just to oppose without going into the merits of the issue to be opposed. Probably Republicans now-a days learn rhymes and jingles from Indian democracy?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

START OF COPENHAGEN SUMMIT ....Any diminution in expectations?

START OF COPENHAGEN SUMMIT
.................... Any diminution in expectations?

( Madan Menon Thottasseri)

_______________________________________________

There were very encouraging signals in the last few days until the global summit has commenced at Copenhagen. The opening day of the climate change conference allegedly witnessed a tempering down of expectations. A new suggestion of a three-layered outcome emerged — one that would leave contentious issues of fixing ambitious emission reduction targets on developed countries for a later date.

The suggestion, made by UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer in his opening speech this morning, urged countries to fast-track action in areas in which there were greater chances of an agreement at this conference — like adaptation or technology transfer or the mechanism that seeks to compensate countries for reducing deforestation.

The countries could then agree to keep themselves engaged on the next layer, it was suggested — that of fixing the emission targets for the developed countries, and the quantum of action to be committed by developing countries like India, China or Mexico.

This process would also include setting up of a funding mechanism to finance adaptation and mitigation in developing and least developed nations.

The third part of the suggestion comprises an agreement over the long-term vision on climate change — issues like what should the global rise in temperature be limited to by 2050, or what level should global emissions be at then, so that the planet is able to avoid catastrophic change.
De Boer likened his three-layered suggestion to as a “Christmas cake” and urged the countries to start acting on their commitments from “the day this conference ends”.

“The time for formal statements is over. The time for restating of old positions is past. The time has now come to act, and to reach out to one another. We have to begin significant and immediate action the day this conference ends,” he said, addressing the opening ceremony. “Deliver. Reach for success,” he said.

It was not immediately clear how the three-layered approach had been received by the countries. A member of India’s negotiating team said most of the countries were still hopeful of a comprehensive agreement coming out of Copenhagen. A UNFCCC official said de Boer had only been articulating the most practical approach to the problem.

It cannot be construed as a slow-start of the summit. The UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer in fact had a guided tour to the subjects to be discussed in the days to come. I think that he gave a thrust for technology transfer enabling developing and underdeveloped nations to get compensated while implementing emission reductions programmes.

I want India to take a strong pitch for SOLAR ENERGY and a shift towards renewable energy sources, from fossil fuels. India can recommend for an exclusive funds for SOLAR PROJECTS which can be implemented on a war footing at all tropical countries.

At Copenhagen, there should be concerted move to plan for utilization of the SOLAR POWER in all tropical nations and sufficient funds can earmarked to such countries as per global parameters acceptable to all nations. This will facilitate countries like India to offer subsidies to industries which come forward to install SOLAR POWER PACTS. Solar can be made mandatory for giant industries, coporate, universities, hospitals etc.here afterwards, beyond a stipulated level of power consumption.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Climate Change Summit and Conspiracies Against Developing nations

Climate Change Summit and Conspiracies Against Developing nations
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
________________________________________________________

India’s accountability is in respect of the voluntary proposal of reduction in emission intensity is better than China. This is the affirmative comment of a U.S senator as if he is an authority of certifying for the intensity of the announcements in the midst of opposition for the same from various corners. He said “they have put the language on the table that’s actually stronger than China’s with respect to the accountability and the measuring” in an interview with the BBC News Channel. The senator is John Kerry who is also the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs.

Kerry is a key architect of the Kerry-Boxer bill in the US Congress that aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 83 per cent by 2050 and 20 per cent over the next decade from 2005 levels.
Kerry said the recent emission cut announcements made by China and India is a result of US President Barack Obama's personal talks with the leaders of these two countries. While Obama went to Beijing in November,2009 , the Indian Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh was in the US soon thereafter on the first State Visit of Barack Obama’s Presidency."If the President had not had the conversations that he had when he was in China, I don't think that he would have come to the point of making a decision to do 17 per cent reduction and I don't think China would have followed a day later with its decision," Kerry said.


India has decided to offer a reduction in carbon emission intensity by 20-25 per cent by 2020 over 2005 levels. Kerry also believes that Copenhagen will come out with a political agreement that will have mandatory reductions that people will agree to. "I believe it will come up with a prompt start to those reductions at the beginning of next year or so. It will also come up with a financing mechanism that will provide funding to some of the less-developed countries to assist them to be part of the solution wherein we can transfer technology," the Senator said. However, he noted that it won't be the final treaty language.


He opinioned that a political agreement to which each of the heads of state sign up to with a prompt beginning with transparency and verification will be acceptable for the time being, which can be much more easily translated into the treaty language over the course of the next months," he said.


Additionally if China and India and other developed countries have stepped up with mandatory reduction target that is going to help Senators and Congressmen to be able to say okay, now we're moving down a global path," he added.

Delegates were converging for the grand finale of two years of tough, sometimes bitter negotiations on a climate change treaty, as UN officials calculated that pledges offered in the last few weeks to reduce greenhouse gases put the world within reach of keeping global warming under control.

Yvo de Boer, the UN's top climate official, said Sunday on the eve of the 192-nation conference that despite unprecedented unity and concessions, industrial countries and emerging nations need to dig deeper. "Time is up," de Boer said. "Over the next two weeks governments have to deliver."

Finance - billions of dollars immediately and hundreds of billions of dollars annually within a decade - was emerging as the key to unblocking an agreement that would bind the global community to a sweeping plan to combat climate change. Nations also must need to commit to larger emission reductions, de Boer said.

South Africa on Sunday became the latest country to announce an emissions target. It said over the next 10 years it would reduce emissions by 34 percent from "business as usual," the level they would reach under ordinary circumstances. By 2025 that figure would peak at 42 percent, effectively leveling off and thereafter begin to decline. "This makes South Africa one of the stars of the negotiations," said the environmental group Greenpeace.


President Barack Obama's decision to attend the conclusion of the two-week conference, after phone consultations with other heads of state, was taken as a signal that an agreement was getting closer. He had originally planned for an hours-long stopover in the Danish capital this week en-route to his way to Oslo, where he will be receiving his Nobel Prize.

All countries together should emit no more than 44 billion tons of carbon dioxide by 2020 to avoid the worst consequences of a warming world, the report said.

Computing the high end of all commitments publicly announced so far, the report said emissions will total some 46 billion tons annually in 2020. Emissions today are about 47 billion tons.US position as a radical change from the former administration under George W. Bush. A year ago "we had a position that this issue was not essential and not critical," he said, calling the shift staggering. "Think about how long it takes for a major country to fundamentally change its position, and this is a miraculously short period of rapid change," he said.
Delegates from several developing countries, however, were less optimistic, and were concerned that the major powers were cutting a deal behind the scenes that could betray the interests of poorer nations

Going by the latest draft proposal from host country Denmark, there is an attempt to instead talk of a date when emerging economies will peak their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. That is not acceptable to India, China or any developing country, many of whom have got together to table an alternate draft that envisages industrialised countries reducing their GHG emissions by at least 40 percent by 2020.

Setting the stage for two weeks of intense negotiations at the climate summit here, India, China and the rest of the Group of 77 countries have decided to reject attempts to sneak in proposals through the backdoor — something that countries like Australia and Denmark have tried to do in recent past — and urged for transparency in the process of negotiations.

The G-77 held a coordination meeting here this evening to decide their joint plan of action to ensure a fair and equitable outcome from Copenhagen.

Sources in India’s negotiating team told The Indian Express that developing nations expressed their discomfiture with certain countries trying to run a parallel track of negotiations by circulating a couple of draft proposals before the start of the summit with the aim of leading the course of talks in a particular direction. “The proposals have to come from within the negotiations. There have been attempts in the recent past to hijack the agenda of the Copenhagen summit and the developing countries are not ready to let that happen,” said an official. “Whatever proposals have to be made, let them be made through the official channel by submitting it at the CoP, followed by a thorough discussion on each one of them,” he said.
The reference was clearly to proposals from Australia and Denmark, which were circulated in the run-up to Copenhagen — both of which, in different ways, tried to dilute the basic tenets of the Kyoto Protocol and the UNFCCC by refusing to make the fundamental distinction between developing and developed countries in the climate debate.

The Australian proposal wanted every country — both developed and developing — to state what they wanted to do on the climate front and then agree to be legally bound by that commitment. This was a clever extension of the principle of NAMAs (Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions) — introduced in the Bali Action Plan — to the rich world as well.
Under the clearly-enunciated principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, the developed countries have to take targeted cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions. The NAMAs apply only to the developing countries, and are not legally binding.

Just weeks ahead of the Copenhagen summit, Denmark informally circulated a proposal to participating countries wanting major emerging economies like India and China to set 2025 as the year when their emissions would peak. Additionally, it wanted every country, regardless of their current levels of emissions, to reduce their emissions by half by the year 2050.

Both these proposals have been rejected by India as unacceptable. The G-77 and China today agreed, and decided to oppose any such move during the negotiations.

The group also sought clarity on the mandate of the Heads of States meeting scheduled at the end of the conference, in which a galaxy of world leaders including Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President Barack Obama will participate. It wanted to know whether the Heads of States meeting would follow the track of the negotiations or would come up with its own agenda.

The group also reaffirmed its faith in the Kyoto Protocol and decided to resist any attempt to replace it with a new treaty. It has decided to let the Copenhagen conference know of its views on the opening day tomorrow on this issue.

Meanwhile, buoyed by the turn of the events in the last few days, with China, India and the US making encouraging announcements, UNFCCC executive secretary Yve do Boer said Copenhagen was already on its way to becoming the turning point in international response to climate change.

Never in 17 years of climate negotiations have so many different nations made so many firm pledges together,” de Boer told reporters on the eve of the anxiously-awaited climate change conference

Actually conspiracies started at CHOGM in the last month, even though it was an opportunity to discuss on the Climate Talks to be held at Copenhagen. Common wealth group consisting wealthy nations like U.K, Canada and Australia and also the planet’s tiny island states as well had a special summit on Climate ahead of the global summit at Copenhagen, and the Britain's Queen Elizabeth, who heads the group had said "On this, the eve of the U.N. Copenhagen summit on climate change, the Common Wealth has an opportunity to lead once more,"

In the last month, the spirit shown by Denmark in 60 th Anniversary of the Common Wealth Heads of Govt. Meetings(CHOGM), held at Port of Spain was mistook by country like India that they are only mustering nations for wider participation and attendance for Climate Talks. In fact Lokke Rasmussen(Danish P.M) did lot of ground work for being smart in connivance with countries like Australia. There were reports when Australian P.M- Kevin Rudd complimented Denmark and said “The clock is ticking to Copenhagen ... we believe that the political goodwill and resolve exists to secure a comprehensive agreement at Copenhagen”.

t is also to be noted in CHOGM , U.N Chief Ban Ki-Moon had stated that while the Climate Summit talk will not be resulting for an an instant approval of a detailed Treaty, the wording of the ‘Commonwealth Declaration”(at CHOGM) would be ‘operationally binding’( ie.tentatively as a uniform rule applicable to all commonwealth nations),and lead fast to a definite treaty.He had said then that the agreement to lay foundation for such a legally binding accord is now ‘within reach’

At CHOGM, Our P.M Man Mohan Singh had reiterated that there is no justification to club the developed nations with developing nations like India as historically industrial nations were responsible for the present crises on climate change affairs. It will not be acceptable to India to stunt the economic development or the considerably reduce the competitiveness by imposing legally binding emission reduction guidelines at par with that of the developed nations. With the idea that we should have to avoid any lowering of sights, he had said that we should not pre-empt the Copenhagen negotiating process and Whatever time is still available to us before the High Level segment meets from December 16, it should be used to achieve as much convergence as possible. However, if the consensus is that only a political document is feasible, then we must make certain that the post-Copenhagen process continues to work on the Bali mandate and the UNFCC continues to be the international template for global climate action.”

Now Australia tries to thrust certain stipulations as an extension of the NAMAS (Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions) — introduced in the Bali Action Plan, which is originally applicable only to rich and developed nations. Denmark being a host nation is expected to maintain more restraint and should not facilitate for underground lobbying.

It is evident that by announcing emission cutting announcements U.S, China and India have established that the three will rule the world for all good causes and jointly take the mantle wherein a global consensus is needed and steer all nations to come forward with positive participation. I wish that all other nations especially one of the rich nations, Australia will not resort to any idea of outsmarting by muddling of unified efforts and deliberations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~