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.
When the green rating results of steel sector were released recently by CSE, industry was quick to pass the buck on poor quality of Indian raw materials and other obscure and ‘uncontrollable’ technical factors. But are they the only reasons leading to poor performance? Surely not. As the two-year survey reached final stages, a much deeper and hitherto unexplored reason emerged in the form of misaligned organisational behaviour, culture and functioning.
Two consecutive days of grid collapse has left almost half of India’s population without power.
Three major grids – northern, north-eastern and eastern – have crashed. Reportedly, over 20 states have been affected. Trains have stalled, markets have closed down, and institutions and offices have been forced to announce holidays. In short, this is nothing short of a national calamity.
What are the reasons behind this massive grid failure?
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.
World leaders attending Rio+20 did nothing to tackle the interlinked crises of economy and ecology, says Sunita Narain after attending the second Earth Summit at Rio.
It was June of 1992. The location was Rio de Janeiro. The occasion was the world conference on environment and development. A large number of people had come out on the streets. They were protesting the arrival of George Bush senior, the then president of the US. Just before coming to the conference, Bush had visited a local shopping centre, urging people to buy more so that the increased consumption could rescue his country from financial crisis. Protesters were angered by his statement that “the American lifestyle is not negotiable”.
