India Holds Back on Climate Pledge Until Rich Nations Pay $1 Trillion (bloomberg.com) 161
India has declined to update its official climate goal at the United Nations climate negotiations, holding out for rich countries to first offer $1 trillion in climate finance by the end of the decade. From a report: The resistance from India stands in contrast to its surprise announcement on Nov. 1, just as COP26 negotiations got underway, that it would set an ambitious new goal to reach net-zero emissions by 2070. Prime Minister Narendra Modi opened the talks in Glasgow, Scotland, with a decision to increase his nation's share of renewable electricity generation capacity alongside the long-term target to zero out carbon. At the same time, Modi demanded rich countries provide as much as $1 trillion in climate finance just for India -- far more than the $100 billion a year for all poor countries sought under previous deals. Until now, however, it wasn't clear whether India's demand came with a fixed timeline. Officials on Wednesday confirmed that India is seeking that sum by 2030 to fund the build out of renewables, energy storage, decarbonization of the industrial sector and defending infrastructure to a warming planet.
I pledge zero emissions by 2026 (Score:5, Insightful)
That's when the next election is due and given my track record as a prez, there's no snowball in hell chance to get reelected, so my opponent from the other party has to deal with this, which gives my party ample ammunition to slander him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is all just a big money grab.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. How come we're still using words like "decades" and "by 2070" when it comes to climate change?
Re: (Score:2)
There is a lot of time for the 2024 elections. If you are going to make the controversial decisions that would lower your approval ratings, then the first year in office is probably the best time to do so. In politics if you get reelected or not it isn't about what you had done for your whole term, but what have you done in the past few months.
Ford the Fall of Vietnam, and a poor economy
Carter there was a recession, as well dealing with Iran.
Bush Sr. was facing a recession
Trump was a global pandemic, an
See where this goes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a large amount of what is wrong with the way that countries approach an existential danger that affects us all. They want to do no more than others or expect others to do something before they will do much.
Wake up guys, smell the coffee! If we all do not do everything that we can then we will be in deep shit. Yes: probably after you have retired from political office but you cannot leave it to those who follow you - that will be too late!
Re: (Score:2)
This is a large amount of what is wrong with the way that countries approach an existential danger that affects us all. They want to do no more than others or expect others to do something...
Yeah.. Expectations need to be boosted. We could start by setting a Per-Capita goal for carbon emissions and make a pact where all members shall impose economic sanctions on any country that Does not show with continual status updates that they are on track towards meeting that goal by a certain date. This obviousl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any per capita target would mean sanctions on US and Europe.
No... only if the US and Europe refuse to improve. Per capita progress/improvement requirement for those above given target. It's not that starting with a higher or lower number should affect it - Refusing to take the steps and actually make improvements to a sufficient percentage from what it is today is what should start sanctions.
Re: (Score:2)
INSURANCE (Score:2)
Nope (Score:3)
Until Rich Nations Pay $1 Trillion
That's never going to happen.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Until Rich Nations Pay $1 Trillion
That's never going to happen.
I think that's kind of the point. Meanwhile Narendra Damodardas Modi will continue building dirty inefficient coal plants and keep making this demand to keep the Hindu nationalist fired up #victimhood.
Re:Nope (Score:4, Insightful)
Until Rich Nations Pay $1 Trillion
That's never going to happen.
I think that's kind of the point. Meanwhile Narendra Damodardas Modi will continue building dirty inefficient coal plants and keep making this demand to keep the Hindu nationalist fired up #victimhood.
He is another leader who I lump in with the crazies, who are hell bent on division and screwing their countries in the medium to long term. Short term it’s just about the popular vote.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Until Rich Nations Pay $1 Trillion
That's never going to happen.
I think that's kind of the point. Meanwhile Narendra Damodardas Modi will continue building dirty inefficient coal plants and keep making this demand to keep the Hindu nationalist fired up #victimhood.
He is another leader who I lump in with the crazies, who are hell bent on division and screwing their countries in the medium to long term. Short term it’s just about the popular vote.
Yup, right up until the Himalayan glaciers melt and 2 billion people start suffering water shortages and famine. It is fascinating how these right wing nationalist fanatics keep equating fossil fuel use with patriotism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nope (Score:4, Interesting)
Victimhood? Is that what you call centuries of persecution, ethnic cleansing and forced conversion of Hindus by invading hoards of Muslims and Christians?
https://hindugenocide.com/ [hindugenocide.com] ..."Screaming from mosque loud speakers and crowded streets was a message for the Sikhs and Hindus living in Kashmir -
Ralive, Tsaliv ya Galive (either convert to Islam, leave the land, or die)."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world... [bbc.com]
https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/... [indiatoday.in]
I call that holding a pointless grudge about stuff that happened hundreds of years ago. The Germans and the French fought dozens of wars over grudges from time of the Carolingian empire. It took until the 20th century and millions of dead for them to realise it was all completely pointless and move on. It took a thousand years but at least they got there in the end.
But don't let me stop you, just continue rolling around in #victimhood to your hearts content instead of getting on with your life.
Re: (Score:2)
At the other side of the world Islam rolled over the place till it hit Nigeria and Somalia. You get the same anti- Islamic feelings.
Or take Spain when Muslims were actually ethnically cleansed to turn Spain from a Islamic nation to a Christian one. or Bosnia and Kosovo
Borderlands where the spread of a religion got stopp
Re: (Score:2)
Until Rich Nations Pay $1 Trillion
That's never going to happen.
He just sounds like Dr Evil from Austin Powers, with a demand like that.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not an impossibility, unless he wants it in used, non-consecutive banknotes.
If the US, UK and EU were to go to India and build $1 trillion's worth of experimental next-gen nuclear reactors (things that aren't mobile, aren't easily repurposed and too radioactive to scavenge for parts) but to agree to hand them over to India (with training in their operation and maintenance) on condition that they replace the coal and oil generators, India could go a long way towards a bloody decent pledge with almost no effort on its part.
It would allow all three contributors to meet their pledges for reducing greenhouse gasses with far less political effort at home, since none of the work would be at home, at a lower cost than reducing pollution by the same amount would be at home.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not an impossibility, unless he wants it in used, non-consecutive banknotes.
If the US, UK and EU were to go to India and build $1 trillion's worth of experimental next-gen nuclear reactors...
Wouldn't Indonesia and Vietnam [climateanalytics.org] where huge amounts of coal power is coming into use be better places to make that investment? Couldn't we get much more energy for the same amount of money by investing in solar and wind in those areas? Given India's past record and Modi's apparent lack of ethics what reason do we have to believe that India would actually keep any promises about shutting down coal?
Re: (Score:2)
They don't shut down coal, then foreign powers control India's primary source of power. India will never agree to that but won't risk storming the places. Modi won't be in power by then, and whoever does get elected will be faced with an interesting challenge. Foreign powers will not only be in control of the grid, but foreigners will be in possession of vast stockpiles of highly radioactive liquid waste that they need to dispose of. An accidental rolling of barrels out of a transport plane whilst over the
Re: (Score:2)
It's not an impossibility, unless he wants it in used, non-consecutive banknotes.
If the US, UK and EU were to go to India and build $1 trillion's worth of experimental next-gen nuclear reactors
You answered your second paragraph with your first. They don't want anyone to come in and build it for them, they want the money so they can siphon 25% or more into their own coffers. Fuck India if that's how they want to play it. Embargo and/or tariff their ass, so they don't need as much power.
Re:Nope (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
India has a space program, it can divert that money if it wants to.
India is not a poor country - some Indians might be poor, but the country is not poor.
Re: (Score:2)
Until Rich Nations Pay $1 Trillion
That's never going to happen.
Especially since they asked for the payment in the form of Amazon or iTunes gift cards.
First step hold your breath. (Score:2, Insightful)
Good luck with that.
Re:First step hold your breath. (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps it's time for "Plan B", where the other COP26 nations start imposing economic sanctions on India until they clean up their act?
If you're going to get serious about stemming climate change, we need to stop making vague promises and pass something with some "teeth".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/-5i4ZGVQGa8 [youtu.be]
Money won't fix the problem (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't get why some people seem to think that moving money around somehow magically will reduce global warming.
India (but not only) is in for some rude awakening: https://www.globalconstruction... [globalcons...review.com]
Modi should demand that fossil fuel production be reduced. That may still avert part of the catastrophe.
Re:Money won't fix the problem (Score:4)
I don't get why some people seem to think that moving money around somehow magically will reduce global warming.
No one thinks this. They just want a chunk of money and this is an excuse.
Modi will be just fine (Score:2)
As for moving money around a rational species faced with global Extinction would
Re: Modi will be just fine (Score:2)
Global extinction?
*Citation needed
Re: (Score:2)
Global extinction??
Last I looked, the projected temp increase from AGW will bring us up to nearly as high as the last Interglacial. And nearly as high as the one before that. AND nearly as high as the one before that one.
Do try to remember that human civilization is living in an Ice Age, and always has been. "Normal" for this planet is rather warmer than our "civilization" has ever seen...
Re: (Score:2)
Humans won't be the first to go, we will probably be the last to go, but the food chain will collapse and then that will lead to wars over resources.
Re:Money won't fix the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get why some people seem to think that moving money around somehow magically will reduce global warming.
Renewable energy is capital intensive but very low running cost. If you can find countries where your money actually goes to the projects and build huge amounts of renewable energy generation there now then it will put fossil fuel out of business simply because energy will be so cheap that it isn't worth doing the dangerous / intensive work of getting it out of the ground. In countries like Morocco, Tunisia and Mexico which don't have huge amounts of capital but do have good conditions for renewable generation there can be a huge benefit. Energy plants are built which sell cheap energy to other countries. The countries themselves get income and work which helps with development. Interlinking with a wide area electricity grid gets rid of the problem of renewable energy functuation (e.g. if the wind is low in Morocco then it will be high in at least one of Germany / Denmark / Ireland / Scotland / Norway).
The same goes in countries in Africa and Asia which are developing hugely from a low base. Building coal and gas based power plants is cheaper short term but more expensive long term. There isn't much of a grid in most of these places and distances are huge so you need build that where possible and to build storage where it isn't. Again, capital investment from abroad could make real sense.
India (but not only) is in for some rude awakening: https://www.globalconstruction... [globalcons...review.com]
Modi should demand that fossil fuel production be reduced. That may still avert part of the catastrophe.
If someone gave India 1T today, given leadership like Modi, can we reasonably believe they would make use of it? China shows a completely different path where they are trying to get leadership in renewable energy and, despite ongoing investment in Coal seriously looks like they are changing direction. India's record on following it's environmental promises isn't the best [copernicus.org]. What's to say the 1T wouldn't end up being spent on air-conditioning making the problem worse?
Better to build an international carbon charge system to make sure that if India does increase it's pollution that gets charged back to them in terms of export tariffs on their goods and services. Invest that back when there's evidence of commitment from the Indian side. I get the idea that there's some historical debt to India but this is a matter of survival of the species. Without commitment from their side investing in India sounds like a bad deal.
Re: Money won't fix the problem (Score:2)
You can't solve global environmental problems with a tax. It's a basic application of the tragedy of the commons. It's rational to just let every other country implement the tax and reap the public benefit of a clean environment, without implementing the tax domestically.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't solve global environmental problems with a tax. It's a basic application of the tragedy of the commons. It's rational to just let every other country implement the tax and reap the public benefit of a clean environment, without implementing the tax domestically.
You should apply it as a tariff on all imports. Basically at the maximum possible all inclusive value that the carbon could be on a given item. If the country shows that it is using lots of renewable energy to the extent that products from their country have a low incremental carbon cost then you reduce that tariff to the level which is fair. Once all the other countries agree to do this, those countries which refuse to implement it end up at a disadvantage, especially because you count the maximum possib
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>Building coal and gas based power plants is cheaper short term but more expensive long term.
This seems like it will be a real problem. If you don't know why, study human nature and corporate nature.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The issue is that developed nations, i.e. "The West", benefitted from very dirty industrial revolutions that released the vast bulk of all the CO2 currently in the atmosphere. They got rich doing that, but are now saying that developing nations can't do the same thing and must instead find ways to develop that don't create huge emissions and that are sustainable.
On top of that, a lot of the reductions that the developed nations made were by outsourcing emissions to developing ones.
Developing nations like In
Re: (Score:2)
Appreciate your comment.
I do understand the issue, but it's more a psychological one. I agree it's bizarre.
Physics couldn't care less *who* put the CO2 up there. The molecules will just happily absorb away energy. Therefore, better to look at it 'memoryless'.
And I'm convinced that the developed nations reducing their fossil production + use 5-10% per year from now on would be worth much more than the trillion for India (but perhaps not for Modi personally).
Why can't he just print the 1T himself, like eve
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that. Developing nations are being put in the same bag as big industrialized nations when it comes to greenhouse emissions. We have to reduce emissions just as much as other nations do.
For example, here in Argentina, I'm not sure about the figure but I read we contribute to 0.7% of worldwide emissions (being the 9th largest country on earth). And yet, we're expected to reduce our emissions. The EU especially, is giving us shit because apparently "cows cause a lot of emissions". So we're evil for po
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. But with rising temperatures, water shortages and, eventually, either a failing or a much more harsh Monsoon (probably alternating each year), India's population will be drastically reduced in the next few decades anyways and emission reduction is sure to follow.
china needs to be part of it and not an get off (Score:2, Insightful)
china needs to be part of it and not an get off like last time. That killed so meany US jobs and lead to lot's of smog there.
Re:china needs to be part of it and not an get off (Score:4)
A simple carbon tax would have essentially solved the problem.
So lets say you get your carbon tax, lets see you enforce it. It is fairly easy to enforce such a tax on developing nations but how about enforcing it on a nuclear power such as China and India?
I agree that a carbon/pollution tax looks good on paper but I just don't how it would be made to work.
Re: china needs to be part of it and not an get of (Score:2)
Sorry, I meant carbon tariff.
I think that was obvious but I guess I forgot this is Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
Carbon tax/tariff, might as well be the same thing. Equally are unenforceable. An from what I've seen people that propose the carbon tax/tariff thing never have good plans ether.
Like many things, looks good on paper, but won't work in reality.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no good reason why a carbon tax (at home) and tariff (for imports) can't work, and I defy you to name even one.
Re: (Score:3)
There's no good reason why a carbon tax (at home) and tariff (for imports) can't work, and I defy you to name even one.
I really can't tell if you are being obtuse or just plain dumb. Very well, you want one, I'll give you two, and we'll use every ones favorite boggy man China.
Lets see, China is a economic superpower through manufacturing. China has something to do with almost everything being made these days. They hold a large number of US bonds so they can do a shit storm on the US economy, which will affect the world in a not so good way. They have the largest collection of rare earths that every one needs these
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, we are talking about two completely different things. You are talking about tariffs and I'm thinking about sanctions. That was my fault.
Tariffs are imposed by individual nation states against another one. That could have an effect if the nation state was powerful enough to enforce them with out damaging their own economy. The issue that I see is retaliatory tariffs by other nation state. An, yes, wars have been fought over tarifs.
Sanctions are imposed by the UN and sometimes other power
Re: (Score:2)
about enforcing it on a nuclear power such as China and India?
Errr just send them a bill? Countries don't typically just nuke their biggest customers out of spite. The idea that China is immune from a trade barrier because of nuclear is equally the most hilarious and the most dangerously stupid thing I've read.
Re: (Score:3)
The idea that China is immune from a trade barrier because of nuclear is equally the most hilarious and the most dangerously stupid thing I've read.
Really? Go look up the number of times the U.S. has used the "biggest stick" policy to get its way, then get back to me on it. What is the most dangerously stupid thing I've ever read is the fact that someone thinks a nation won't use its military, including nuclear assets, to get is way. Nations are not known to act rationally when they think they have the "biggest stick."
Re: (Score:3)
First of all, you are an idiot. Now then with that established, you have a point. The United States has never directly threated any nation state with nuclear weapons. But it has and continues to use the implied nuclear force to get is way.
Now continuing down this road, even without the nuclear option the United States military is still a pretty god damn big fucking stick. And in the past the United States has used its "big ass stick" to get its way, even to enforce trade that is beneficial to it. S
Yeah, no... (Score:2)
I'm just going to redeem this $1 trillion gift card myself.
India's extortion note (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is no plan for the West to pay for themselves, much less for someone else. No one has suggested that the West has to extract the pollution from the atmosphere that we dumped there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Europe dumped huge amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere to industrialize. Now we demand that India industrializes without dumping CO2 in the atmosphere, or stays poor. This is obviously unfair, since we don't have any plan to remove the CO2 we dumped already. That is why we need to compensate India (and other countries) for the pollution we already dumped.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, none of what you say makes up for the fact that no one should give India the money.
Due to the corruption of the local government, the only solution, if there were to be one, would be for the rest of the world to oversee and possibly even staff the projects.
Modi Mods (Score:2)
I love how all the dictators have their own moderation patrols.
Whose pockets it it going go line? (Score:3)
holding out for rich countries to first offer $1 trillion in climate finance by the end of the decade
So, which people's pockets is that money going to line, because we all know it won't be going towards saving the environment.
One move and the Indian gets it (Score:2)
Brilliant plan.
acting like a petulant child (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It takes this thing called technology to improve and the US and UK have laid claim to be arbiters of that. Very well, with great power comes great responsibility. They should pay to give that technology to India. To avoid imbalance, they should give identical technology to Pakistan. Both should get the latest in next-gen research reactors, scaled up to commercial size. To hell with the usual waiting period, India claims it doesn't have time. Which is fair enough. Make the total commitment $1 trillion, with
Re: (Score:2)
Seems arbitrary (Score:2)
A quick Google search for wealthiest countries [google.com] shows Luxembourg as #1 for 2020 with a GDP per capita of $118,001. Pretty sure their climate impact is lower than India's.
1: Luxembourg (GDP per capita: $118,001)
2: Singapore (GDP per capita: $97,057)
3: Ireland (GDP per capita: $94,392)
4: Qatar (GDP per capita: $93,508)
5: Switzerland (GDP per capita: $72,874)
6: Norway (GDP per capita: $65,800)
7: United States of America (GDP per capita: $63,416)
Different metrics put countries in different positions, with India as high as #7 on some lists of richest/wealthiest countries, so ...
Re: (Score:2)
Most of these things are pretty arbitrary.
Even 'metrics' like emissions per capita make it seem like certain countries 'owe' more. But at the end of the day much of it is the consequence of just a different society or a society in a different time.
If a society develops to have a smaller population, but one where each person is 'wealthier', is that a bad thing? Not in my head, it's just different. It's a difference born of culture, history, government choices, war...
At the end of the day, no country owes any
Re: (Score:3)
Ireland's GDP is mostly tax avoidance by Google. Nobody in Ireland is seeing much of that. Same goes for Luxembourg - a country who's entire purpose is to launder stolen money.
Climatehoax gotta (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not about the climate it's about all the people; there's too many of them.
Wear a damn rubber!
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about the climate it's about all the people; there's too many of them.
Wear a damn rubber!
Not quite that simple. The worst problem here are all those damn religions that want to grow their number of followers by forbidding contraception. Unless and until we get those evil people under control, global population reduction other than by massive catastrophe is unlikely to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
you forget war, which unfortunately is where we're headed.
How about "bite me"? (Score:2)
Ultimatums such as this just go to prove the fact that this isn't a problem let alone one that anyone really wants to solve. They just want money; other people's money.
Cut the red tape India (Score:2)
Simple (Score:2)
Agree to the terms, but add a stipulation that Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party must no longer be eligible for Indian elections.
That's rich (Score:2)
What defines a rich nation?
States like India and the PRC are still considered "developing nations" yet they both possesses space programs and nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
they both possesses space programs and nuclear weapons.
So does North Korea.
Money comes with strings (Score:3)
There was the saying, "who hold the purse...", and this would be very relevant here. And I am sure there is a similar one in every language, including Hindi, so Modi is opening up negotiations to be in Western or Chinese influence in the coming decades.
Whoever goes there and installs a trillion dollar worth of equipment will get the cake.
I wish it did not come to that. But this is the ugly side of geopolitics.
Sounds about right. (Score:3)
When you consider that colonial powers (i.e. England) have extracted much more than that out of India over the years exploiting labor and resources and in addition that these same "developed" countries have been the largest drivers of climate change which, of course, damages "third world" countries dis-proportionally, it's entirely appropriate that developed countries should pay third world countries reparations to help mitigate the damage they have caused.
Sounds like something from Austin Powers (Score:2)
I will keep polluting unless all the worlds governments give me one TRILLION dollars! [chew on pinky while laughing evilly]
fuck that (Score:2)
It is LONG past time for the west to change our approach. We need to start taxing all consumed goods/services, based on where the WORST CO2 comes from. Not total, or per capita, but normalized on CO2 / $ GDP (real). Do the measurements with satellites designed to measure CO2 AND methane. We have a few up there, we need MORE.
India: We have nuclear weapons and a space program (Score:2)
our billionaires are buying up companies around the world,
but we benefit from aid from other nations to look after our citizens
and want a payout before we act on climate change.
Any time we want to be poor... (Score:2)
...we can control India and China like puppets. We just have to stop buying their stuff.
Want to make Modi and Xi stop making our steel with coal? Stop buying steel made with coal! Or at least tariff products made with carbon. The producers will switch technologies automatically to stay in business.
The problem is, then WE would be poor, in steel at least. Quite a lot of "globalism", as has been protested, is all about making our own 1% richer, and the 99%, if little else, get cheaper prices. They w
Re: (Score:2)
I advocate a robust research into low-carbon technologies, followed by ruthless tariffs against high-carbon technologies. That would bring a lot of industry back to our shores, at least until Asia caught up.
Given the amount of inflation caused by a backed up port and some power outages in China, I hope you're ready to spend $150 for a plain t-shirt.
Climate ransom? (Score:4, Insightful)
So basically India is going to hold the globe ransom unless we pay up with loans and shit?
Way to massively miss the point, especially for a country that has a whole shitload of coastline.
Re: (Score:2)
Not going to happen (Score:2)
Look, the age of Imperial America is over, and we're not going to backstop India Pakistan Bangladesh Asia or the Middle East.
So stuff it.
We will impose carbon taxes on imports from India if you keep pushing this.
I'm thinking $500 per metric tonne.
Re: (Score:2)
HOWEVER, we CAN tax consumed goods/services based on CO2. As long as we tax all goods in the same fashion, we are fine with all of our treaties. And yes, that means taxing our own goods/services. And I would suggest, we do it at a state level for America. Reward the states and nations that are dropping their emissions and go after those that are raising it.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, it's a carbon import tax on nations not meeting their goals. It's up to them if they want to pay it.
whats next? (Score:2)
We're not paying ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just think of the cold hard fact that all of Bangladesh will be underwater by 2020 and half of India and Pakistan will be uninhabitable by 2040.
India doesn't have until 2070.
They have until ... now.
Best get to work reducing emissions by 50% by 2025 and by 80% by 2030, because the math and the science don't care about your excuses for not acting.
Re: (Score:2)
The USA is arguably also heading for a civil war or split.
Re: (Score:2)
The USA is arguably also heading for a civil war or split.
Probably. Different causes though.