Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Earth Government Power

India Ratifies The Paris Climate Change Agreement ( 130

"India just ratified the Paris climate deal -- bringing it extremely close to taking effect," reports the Washington Post, calling India the world's fourth-largest producer of greenhouse gas. An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes NPR's update on the Paris agreement: It will not become binding until it's ratified by 55 countries that contribute a total of at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The 55-country requirement has already been fulfilled -- India is No. 62 -- but...the current signatories account for about 52 percent of global greenhouse emissions, according to a statement released by the U.N. on Sunday.

India currently produces about 4.5 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions [and] has set a goal of producing 40 percent of its electricity with non-fossil fuel sources by 2030. India also promised to plant or preserve enough tree cover to act as a sink for at least 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide, and has called on the U.S. and other fully developed countries to share technologies that help decrease emissions.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

India Ratifies The Paris Climate Change Agreement

Comments Filter:
  • Canada, eh? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ptaff ( 165113 ) on Monday October 03, 2016 @03:53AM (#53002693) Homepage

    Canada (1.95% of the percent of global greenhouse emissions) is supposed to ratify the agreement later this week []. With the liberals having the majority of seats, this should easily pass. Not enough to bring it to 55%, though.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The EU has agreed to ratify it as well, so we'll get above 55% easily.
    • Meh. I'm pretty sure Canada "ratified" the Kyoto protocol as well. Did we meet those targets? I'm thinking no. Of all the countries that did, how many actually met targets? Probably not many.

      It's one thing to ratify an agreement, it's another to actually follow though with the contents. There being little consequence, it is subject to whatever political winds change in the future.

      • by ptaff ( 165113 )

        I'm pretty sure Canada "ratified" the Kyoto protocol as well. Did we meet those targets? I'm thinking no.

        True. Kyoto was ratified by the Liberal party then in power; they were defeated in 2006 by Conservatives (led by fossil fuel enthusiast Stephen Harper) who ruled over Canada until 2015. Liberals are back in the driver seat and odds are they will stay in control until at least 2023, as the two other significant parties (Conservatives, NDP) are now running internal leadership races without a single stron

  • by darthsilun ( 3993753 ) on Monday October 03, 2016 @04:00AM (#53002709)

    A little earlier we were told that the US is no. 4 on the list of polluters (sic) in the post[1] on reservoirs as a source of greenhouse gases.

    So which is it?

    [1] []

    • by ptaff ( 165113 ) on Monday October 03, 2016 @04:08AM (#53002723) Homepage

      we were told that the US is no. 4 on the list of polluters

      USA would be second [], with 17.89% while India shows 4.10%, according to a UN climate change document referenced in the above Wikipedia link.

      • Yeah, thanks. It was a rhetorical question. It was more a poke at what passes for /. editing.
      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        These figures are even more interesting when you consider populations:

        US: 4.35% of the population (324 million people), 17.89% of greenhouse gasses.
        India 17.9% of the population (1330 million people), 4.10% of greenhouse gasses.

        1 US citizen creates 17x the greenhouse gasses that an Indian citizen does.

        Just imagine what will happen if India achieves the same prosperity level as the US.
        That is why, even with radical changes in both the west and countries like India and China, it will be a major feat to just s

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Except it isn't the citizens, it's the corporations.

          • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday October 03, 2016 @07:29AM (#53003143)

            It's both. Prosperity means that time becomes more valuable than money, and money can buy machinery to do work for you. Imagine you cannot afford that SUV and have to go by bus. Yes, that takes way more hours and is horribly inconvenient, but it also means a lower emission footprint. Of course nobody would willingly accept that hardship for no good reason, so the only "good enough" reason would probably be that you can't afford your own car.

            Same goes for a lot of other things. Air condition being one, clothes dryer another. We use a lot of machines that increase our quality of life that contribute to pollution, directly or indirectly.

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              It's not quite such a stark choice though. You can buy an efficient car, even a more efficient SUV like a plug-in hybrid. You can run the AC all day, or you can improve your home / buy a well designed one that needs much less heating and cooling.

              Those things improve quality of life with no down side or less. Less pollution, more disposable income since less is wasted on energy, and the same or better standard of living.

              • Well, you first of all have to be able to afford a new home or new car.

                • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  Well, someone has to. But then a few years later you can buy them second hand.

                  Or just upgrade your current home. Insulation and other easy mods are pretty cheap.

                  • Someone has to, but that someone in turn will not sell his car like he used to because it will have to last him another year or two since yes, he would want to buy the latest model but he, too, cannot afford it. The "trickle down" theory works both ways. Or rather, it doesn't work in either way...

                    And insulating your home still means that you have to be able to do it yourself or even, depending on where you live, be allowed to do it yourself. The latter especially if you plan to be able to sell your house at

                    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      Is there much evidence that making cars more efficient makes them cost more? I mean, manufacturers are always improving their engines and other parts anyway to encourage upgrades and stay competitive, so mostly all that efficiency rules do is divert some of the funding that would have gone into making the car more powerful into make it more efficient.

                    • Cars also get heavier and heavier with all the "must have" gadgets, and of course with all the safety features. It's actually surprising that the average middle class car today weighs about a metric tonne.

                      And yes, efficiency is of course increasing. But at the same time people want cars with more comfort and more power. Sadly efficiency still isn't one of the main sellers, what people "feel" when they take a car for a test drive is its power and comfort, its design and the gimmicks. Who cares about mileage

        • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Monday October 03, 2016 @09:28AM (#53003677) Journal
          That shift is already happening, on both ends. Look at the per capita emissions of each country. In the US, Europe (including Eastern Europe), emissions have been dropping steadily since the 90s and are still dropping. Those in India and China are seeing a sharp increase, though they are still well below US levels. In the 90s, a US citizen produced almost 25x the amount of CO2 of someone from India. Today, it's "only" 9x. China emits more CO2 per capita than the EU average (Source [], see page 31).

          The lesson here is that it appears that we can actually reduce our emissions significantly without radical changes to our lifestyle, and that developing nations can have a level of prosperity similar to ours without necessarily breaking the planet. Not that we should sit back and relax, quite the contrary, but we shouldn't let ourselves be scared into "radical" solutions either.
          • by fsagx ( 1936954 )

            How much of the drop in emissions of the West can be attributed to shifts of heavy industry to China?

            • How much of the drop in emissions of the West can be attributed to shifts of heavy industry to China?
              Likely none.
              You still by German cars, other European cars and Japanese Cars, no one buys cars from China, yet. What exactly do you have in mind China is producing and we are buying if it is not cheap toys or computer/phones?

              • by ljw1004 ( 764174 ) on Monday October 03, 2016 @10:44AM (#53004133)


                • Germany is not importing steel from either India nor China in noteworthy amounts. And I doubt your country is.

                  • Germany imports around 25 billion dollars worth of iron and steel per year. In 2015 about 1.9 billion dollars of that came from China, i.e. about 8%. I leave it up to you to decide whether that is "noteworthy".


                    • In 2015 about 1.9 billion dollars of that came from China, products not steel/iron.
                      Fixed that for you. And no, that is not noteworthy, don't be scared by big numbers. That is not even the price for one super tanker ... the 2 billion I mean. If we would import raw iron/steel I would however not know how much that is in tons, e.g. how it would relate to the amount of cars we produce.

                    • In 2015 about 1.9 billion dollars of that came from China, products not steel/iron.
                      Fixed that for you.

                      Nope, you broke it, not fixed it. That's iron & steel input to your industry. Just exactly what do you think cars are made from?

                    • The link you provided clearly states that Germany is importing products worth 1.9 billion from china, not raw steel.

                      The cars we make are mostly made from recycled steel, facepalm - recycled cars especially.

              • no one buys cars from China, yet.

                Not true. I've seen people driving Chinese cars. Outside of China even.

            • Probably some it, but I would also suggest that the shrinking demographics of the West and Japan have something to do with it.
            • That's a good question. I don't know; at least here in the Netherlands the drop doesn't seem to be due to industry moving to China. (Source [])
        • 1 US citizen creates 17x the greenhouse gasses that an Indian citizen does.

          Just imagine what will happen if India achieves the same prosperity level as the US./I
          Most countries that have a similar prosperity level use far less power than the US do, or produce more if its power "greener". There is no fear that India e.g. will increase its CO2 production dramatically. Unlike the thinking in the US not everyone there wants to live in a shiny western stile house that relies in AC and is otherwise uninhabitable w

    • by Anonymous Coward

      So which is it?

      It's numbers, presented from a source.
      Interpretation will vary depending on your agenda.

      Show the total if you want to make China look bad, show the amount per capita if you want the US to look bad.
      Heck, you can even switch to the delta if you want to make the worst offenders look great and those who reduced their emissions decades ago look bad.
      You can even decide to only look at carbon emissions and ignore everything else if you want to or if you really want to stretch things you can assign carbon emissions

    • by aliquis ( 678370 )

      Except it never says US is #4: []

      If the world's reservoirs were a country, they'd be #8 on a list of polluters -- right behind Brazil, China, the EU and the U.S.

      It's wrong in that it mention EU as a country but it's not listed in order in that #1 is Brazil, #2 is China, #3 is EU and #4 is the US.
      Also it says "polluters" not green-house gas emissions, but maybe that's what one should assume it is?
      Green-house gas emissions: [] .. would put China and USA as #1 and #2 and Brazil at #6 if you don't view EU as a country.

  • Meaningless (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It's years to late and even if it where ratified by the required number of countries there is no mechanism to force compliance and no targets from previous treaties have even come close to being met

    Can we just admit we don't care about children and get on with the business of enslaving them and destroying the planet for our own limited comfort without pretense of ethics or morality

    • Works for me.

      I'm old enough that I won't be affected by the rising sea levels, I have no kids and no reason to keep this planet habitable 50 years from now. So pump that oil and gimme my greaseball hamburger!

  • >> call on west to "share" tech

    Not a problem, it's on sale now.

    >> Er...we really meant "give"

    Thought so.
  • by Attila Dimedici ( 1036002 ) on Monday October 03, 2016 @03:27PM (#53006127)
    The article says that the U.S. has joined the agreement, but that is not actually true. Obama has not even submitted this agreement to the Senate to START the process of the U.S. joining it. Until the Senate ratifies it, this agreement is not legally binding upon the U.S.. If other countries want to bind themselves to an agreement based on the assumption that all future Presidents and Congresses will honor Obama's word on this treaty, that is up to them. But if they do so, they are being foolish because the reason Obama has not submitted it to the Senate is because he knows the Senate will reject it (just like a previous Senate rejected the Kyoto accords...even without them being submitted that Senate voted 99-0 on a statement opposing the Kyoto Accords).
    • by khallow ( 566160 )
      It is interesting that the treaty chooses to recognize Obama's signature as ratification even though it isn't. The division of power here is that the President negotiates treaties and the Senate ratifies them.
      • The fact that Obama chose to sign a treaty that is worded so as to imply that the U.S. is bound by it solely on his signature is a violation of his oath of office.
  • The U.N. (useless nations) have no way to enforce it. It's a piece of paper, that they will hail as a way to "save the planet", but, most nations will ignore/cheat anyway.
  • Clearly India hasn't been subjected to enough black-ops false-flag terror attacks to convince them of the foolishness of this course of action.

    Or maybe they just, y'know - want the world to be a better place.

"If it's not loud, it doesn't work!" -- Blank Reg, from "Max Headroom"