India Calls Out Inequalities at COP28 Climate Summit (nature.com) 85
India wants to be the voice of the global south in the negotiations. But can the world's most populous nation cut its massive coal use? From a report: India is pitching itself as a leader of the global south at the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28), under way in Dubai. During his opening speech at the meeting, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi issued a sharp rebuke to wealthy nations: "A small section of mankind has exploited nature indiscriminately. But the whole of humanity is paying its price, especially the residents of the global south." But India -- now the world's most populous nation -- relies heavily on coal to meet its energy needs, and faces a difficult path to cutting its emissions to net zero. The country's priority remains reducing poverty -- which India says requires more energy use -- but more action on climate change is essential, say researchers.
"If we have to reach net-zero by 2050 collectively, then India's share in that collective goal should be a significant one," says Nandini Das, a climate researcher based in Perth, Australia, who works for the global research group Climate Action Tracker. But she adds that in terms of finance, "India requires substantial international support." India is the world's third biggest carbon producer, accounting for 7.3% of global greenhouse-gas emissions in 2022. But those emissions come from 1.43 billion people, accounting for 18% of the world's population. India's per capita emissions last year were equivalent to 2.76 tonnes of carbon dioxide, less than one-sixth of the per capita emissions of the United States and 24 times smaller than the figure for Qatar, the world's largest per capita emitter.
India's average standard of living is far below those of the United States and Qatar, with 210 million people living in poverty according to United Nations metrics. India has maintained that coal -- a cheap fossil fuel readily available in the country -- is required to power its economic development. Coal supplied 73% of India's electricity in 2022; and in November this year, the country announced that it would install 80 gigawatts of new coal-fired power-generation capacity by 2032. "We have to give a fair share to all developing countries in the global carbon budget," Modi said at COP28.
"If we have to reach net-zero by 2050 collectively, then India's share in that collective goal should be a significant one," says Nandini Das, a climate researcher based in Perth, Australia, who works for the global research group Climate Action Tracker. But she adds that in terms of finance, "India requires substantial international support." India is the world's third biggest carbon producer, accounting for 7.3% of global greenhouse-gas emissions in 2022. But those emissions come from 1.43 billion people, accounting for 18% of the world's population. India's per capita emissions last year were equivalent to 2.76 tonnes of carbon dioxide, less than one-sixth of the per capita emissions of the United States and 24 times smaller than the figure for Qatar, the world's largest per capita emitter.
India's average standard of living is far below those of the United States and Qatar, with 210 million people living in poverty according to United Nations metrics. India has maintained that coal -- a cheap fossil fuel readily available in the country -- is required to power its economic development. Coal supplied 73% of India's electricity in 2022; and in November this year, the country announced that it would install 80 gigawatts of new coal-fired power-generation capacity by 2032. "We have to give a fair share to all developing countries in the global carbon budget," Modi said at COP28.
India (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The bad news though (Score:3)
At this point, we have to pay attention and adapt. And miss me with the silly plans to turn the planet into a thousand year acid rain dump with aerosols, or the attempt to return the oceans to Paleoproterozoic times with a huge mining of iron, then dumping it in the oceans.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And while we are smart to try to stop de-sequestering any more CO2
Who's "we"? Name the nation with a real plan to not emit more CO2 than it is fixing.
And miss me with the silly plans to turn the planet into a thousand year acid rain dump with aerosols, or the attempt to return the oceans to Paleoproterozoic times with a huge mining of iron, then dumping it in the oceans.
OK, who's going to pay for the angular soletta at L1?
Even if we stopped emitting carbon now and planted bamboo everywhere it could be planted we'd still be in big trouble.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Tell us you didn't understand the discussion without telling us. You didn't read or perhaps understand everything in the comment to which I was replying, and critiquing my comment without that understanding is irresponsible and therefore rude. Don't complain to me about being rude while you're not doing your part to participate in the discussion in an informed fashion.
Mostly what I've gleaned from your post is that you questioned who my stated "we" was. And not to put too fine a point on it, "We" is everyone on earth, from islanders who's land will be underwater, to shore dwellers that will lose their land - think Miami. From low to mid latitudes, some becoming more like areas that have monsoon seasons or some that become more akin to deserts. From shifting agricultural growth areas from where they are now, to having likely Canada, perhaps Siberia. Even in my area, the
Re: The bad news though (Score:2)
Well, that "we" is/are not that smart. We are still burning fossil fuels at problematic rates and some are actually increasing those rates.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that "we" is/are not that smart. We are still burning fossil fuels at problematic rates and some are actually increasing those rates.
I'm not certain what you are belaboring here. "We" - as in every person on earth, are not a homogenous mass of humanity - a borg-like collective. Many of the "we" I refer to have no idea about this, ignorant of even the existence of Greenhouse warming, or even the gases involved. But they certainly are affected by it.
But I'll use your term "smart" if you like.
Many of us are not that smart, some of us very much are. I had the present situation figured out for myself over 40 years ago. Others long befor
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not certain what you are belaboring here. "We" - as in every person on earth, are not a homogenous mass of humanity - a borg-like collective.
THIS YOU BRO? [slashdot.org] "And not to put too fine a point on it, "We" is everyone on earth" How about this? [slashdot.org] "we are smart to try to stop de-sequestering any more CO2"
You do not even know what your argument is. You are the one that said "everyone on earth" is trying to "stop de-sequestering any more CO2" which is just provably false. Then you're complaining about my interpretation of what you said, which you don't even remember because you were just free-riffing bullshit. THAT is what I am "belaboring"; You're arguing
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
do you just look for arguments? the guy ostensibly agrees with you
The damage has been done already.
is saying the the same thing as
Even if we stopped emitting carbon now and planted bamboo everywhere it could be planted we'd still be in big trouble.
seriously, are you employed? are you this needlessly contrarian around other people?
I think drinkypoo just doesn't like me very much. That's okay, can't go through life without rustling some feathers.
Re: The bad news though (Score:1)
I'm not even upset. The point is, what's your plan for addressing AGW without hacking the air or the ocean? Because you know we can't plant our way out of this, and we're not going to reduce emissions as fast as we could. Those other guys charged into the argument without their brains but I suspect you've still got yours, so what's your answer?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not even upset. The point is, what's your plan for addressing AGW without hacking the air or the ocean? Because you know we can't plant our way out of this, and we're not going to reduce emissions as fast as we could. Those other guys charged into the argument without their brains but I suspect you've still got yours, so what's your answer?
My answer that I have made several times is that we do our damndest to stop adding more.
My plan is definitely not the schemes to suddenly remove all of the de-sequestered CO2.
I know it sounds like a pure miracle to mine iron, powder it and dump it in the oceans - not like in one place, but over the entire world. And if you think that is a goood solution, you need to look at exaclt what that will do. At the very least, you will have to understand that it will kill much of the ocean life we have today.
Re: (Score:2)
My answer that I have made several times is that we do our damndest to stop adding more.
We cannot hope and pray our way out of this problem. We have to actively address it.
I know it sounds like a pure miracle to mine iron, powder it and dump it in the oceans - not like in one place, but over the entire world. And if you think that is a goood solution, you need to look at exaclt what that will do. At the very least, you will have to understand that it will kill much of the ocean life we have today.
So will doing nothing. Sometimes you have to accept that there is no good plan.
There is no fix, homie. All we can do is stop de-sequestering greenhouse gas emitters, try to figure out just how much disruption there will be, and move ahead. There is no magick quick fix, no matter how much we might desire it.
Only you are talking about magic. I am talking about science.
Re: (Score:3)
And while we are smart to try to stop de-sequestering any more CO2
Who's "we"? Name the nation with a real plan to not emit more CO2 than it is fixing.
We is everyone on earth - That has no relevance to what any one or all nations have planned. I made no reference to politics or plans, merely note that we are here on earth, and we as everyone will be affected.
It's the core issue. India's CO2 emissions, or China's CO2 emissions are still CO2. Treating CO2 emmissions as if the country that puts them into the atmosphere has some effect on what happens is just trying to get an edge up for one's own country.
And miss me with the silly plans to turn the planet into a thousand year acid rain dump with aerosols, or the attempt to return the oceans to Paleoproterozoic times with a huge mining of iron, then dumping it in the oceans.
OK, who's going to pay for the angular soletta at L1?
Even if we stopped emitting carbon now and planted bamboo everywhere it could be planted we'd still be in big trouble.
You are correct. We are in trouble. The greenhou
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we all strongly encourage India to cut back on the PEOPLE there for one thing....like much of the rest of the world is doing.
That'll cut back on the carbon usage, AND less people makes prosperity easier to go around.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with per capita CO2 emissions is it isn't a fair representation. Canada has a low population and high resources many of which are exported to other countries that demand those resources. Canada's population is 40 million people, spread around the 2nd largest country in the world. The amount of product we export to other countries make our emissions per capita look like we are just having crude oil fires in our backyards. If we had the population of India, and using the data you provided, Cana
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with per capita measurement is the "That which is measured is improved" rule.
It encourages increased population as a way of diluting responsibility for pollution. Two wrongs to make a right.
Re: (Score:2)
Fellow Canadian here, so gonna weigh in.
Canada has a low population and high resources many of which are exported to other countries that demand those resources.
Arguments like this are akin to a child throwing their trash into their sibling's room and then bragging about how clean their own room is, any reasonably decent parent will see right through that shit and make you help clean your sibling's room.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with per capita CO2 emissions is it isn't a fair representation. Canada has a low population and high resources many of which are exported to other countries that demand those resources. Canada's population is 40 million people, spread around the 2nd largest country in the world. The amount of product we export to other countries make our emissions per capita look like we are just having crude oil fires in our backyards. If we had the population of India, and using the data you provided, Canada's CO2 emissions per person would drop to 1.2t per person, which is almost HALF that of India's per person...yet it is framed that Canadians are at fault here.
It is like I framed it earlier. Third world nations try to frame the discussion in such a way to create advantage for themselves, especially when it results in stasis for them.
Any country with India's population will have a low CO2 emission per capita. Especially with India's third world status, and social structure. Not trying to be cruel here, but it is how it is.
And with India's population and willingness to add to it, they not only will have a low per capita emission rate, they will remain in that
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we all strongly encourage India to cut back on the PEOPLE there for one thing....like much of the rest of the world is doing.
If you want to get rid of people India is way down the list [ourworldindata.org] Try Americans, Canadians and Australians. way more bang for your buck.
And after India decided to add another half billion to their population between 2010 and 2023 - hey, they can get that per capita CO2 release even lower if they add another half billion in the next decade.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we all strongly encourage India to cut back on the PEOPLE there for one thing....like much of the rest of the world is doing.
That'll cut back on the carbon usage, AND less people makes prosperity easier to go around.
I couldn't agree more.
One of the issues that we always run into is that any time we come up with a way to feed more people, the world just ends up with more people. The number of people just increases to put more stress on the ecosystem. Same with vaccinating areas where there are premature death issues. More food more children, less deaths, longer lifespans. More system stress.
So here we have the modern third world, with some countries that would be much more prosperous if they just pumped the brake
Re: (Score:2)
Germany had expected to be able to rely on a stable supply of methane from Russia in order to rapidly phase out coal. Now the phase-out will be slower, but they do have a plan to close the coal plants and increase the share of wind or solar power to 80% by 2030.
Re: (Score:1)
Phasing out a fossil fuel for another fossil fuel is not going to solve any problem. Especially when they, as a developped country, had the solution available (and even partially deployed) for so long.
They are just posturing.
Re: Define fairness (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, is Modi asking for help that may feasibly be forthcoming or just giving excuses?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
How about India cut back on the PEOPLE it has.....curb the birth rate.
Do like the west is doing...cutting back on people cuts back on the Co2...and would make prosperity a bit easier with less people there.
Re: suprisingly quiet on the virtue front (Score:2)
You can only cut on people if you increase prosperity and wealth. Both of those things require less government and more basic freedom.
This is something India is not well suited to do due to tribal/ethnic/religious desire for independence. India is pretty much like the EU, a country with despotic leaders held together by handing out welfare and overbearing government.
Fertility rate in India is at replacement. (Score:2)
A quick search of the internet tells me that the fertility rate in India is about at replacement.
https://www.macrotrends.net/co... [macrotrends.net]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Studies show that a fertility rate of about 2.1 children per female is what it takes to maintain a steady population. That's one baby to replace mommy, one to replace daddy, and that extra 1/10th of a baby to replace children with birth defects, early deaths from disease and accidents, and a few Darwin Award winners that prevent them from propaga
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, India has too MANY people right now...and replacement just keeps that problem in place.
They need to go UNDER replacement, at least for awhile...to lower the population and hence, raise prosperity for everyone and less CO2.
Outside of some war, epidemic, or other unfortunate event there will not be a reduction to India's population "right now". A quick search of the internet tells me that there is an expectation for population to decline soon, if it hasn't already started. With fertility rates at about 2.0 children per woman they are already on a path to population decline. That's a very slow decline now but remember that things like this work on exponential curves, it will bring a rapid decline soon enough.
Then is the clai
Re: (Score:2)
Same old same old (Score:3, Insightful)
No my friends, it's all the same, and the CO2 per capita, or CO2 per gross national product is just a game for people to play that is just another version of "Ya'll others hafta lower your emissions - we have to keep spewing it, because reasons."
Re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Every pound of de-sequestered Carbon Dioxide or Methane makes an equal contribution to the energy retention characteristics of our atmosphere. It matters not who emits it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Same old same old (Score:4, Interesting)
its easy to say that in first world, brother
I apologize for where I am located.
It's the difference between me saying that we all need to stop de-sequestering greenhouse gases, and you saying that some countries be allowed to spew them, while others are not.
There lies the problem. Let's say that a third world country is allowed to have no restrictions on it's CO2 emissions. And let's say that this allows them to become a true beacon of prosperity because emissions are somehow the path. That's a real hypothetical, I personally believe that a better path is to use the energy generation methods that will be in use after fossil fuels are no longer economically feasible, but let's take your thesis.
So, after these third world nations enter first world status - do you believe that they should continue to have no boundary on emissions?
The first world of the future will be largely powered by renewables, like solar and wind, and energy storage while the countries without the restrictions will have coal and petrochemical systems. And will either be allowed to continue dumping pollutants and CO2, or now replace the polluting systems.
I think that is what some might say - "You just played yourself". Using archaic and polluting infrastructure, and now, having to foot the bill to once again catch up to the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I apologize for where I am located.
its what you said, not where you said it from....
. Let's say that a third world country is allowed to have no restrictions on it's CO2 emissions.
Not what Im saying. Im saying the West can foot the bill.
Well then - we're happy to help. But sorry, footing the entire bill? Entitlement is pretty impressive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Entitlement is pretty impressive.
rich west tells poor global south what to do, thats the entitled part. thered be no qualms if the west paid for their own ideas.
Perhaps your western ideas could be implemented by your downtrodden poor rejecting all western ideas and technology. Then the rest of the world could settle back into the 1700's and be happy, without any western corruption happening.
Those coal burning plants - is that western technology? Yes it is. Why are they using it? As a western idea, it is bad and should be discarded.
Here's your problem. If the "poor global south" is released from any and all responsibility they have set themselves above the law
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you white western racists got a head start with all your pollution us poor brown people now have to deal with and we demand equity!
You have to pay us raw hard cash to -not- cut down trees and more cash for all the trees we didn't cut down in the past and promise not to cut in the future while at the same time reducing your own co2 emissions to negatives. And we want a nicely written apology. And oh yeah, keep your southern border open because we're headed to your country because our countries are super cluster fucks. But that's your fault, too.
Oh, my shame! 8^)
But you touch upon something within the humor. India has the capability of being a completely modern country, there is no question that they can. I've worked with enough engineers from India to know that. But somehow they are trying, but seem somewhat stuck. It doesn't have a thing to do with carbon emissions. Seems like a place to latch onto renewables and energy storage big time.
Of course, too many people. Of course that superannuated caste system, and religion dictating too much of
Re: (Score:2)
Many skilled people leave India because they know their potential will otherwise be wasted on Caste mentality that permeates their society.
I was about to make a similar comment.
I wonder how much the caste system holds among Christians in India. The few people from India I've met identified as Christian, but that term may have a different meaning to them. It appears that the caste systems holds somewhat among Christians in India in spite of it not quite being something one would find in the Holy Bible. To adhere to the concept of castes isn't very Christian, which is why I made that comment that being a Christian may mean something different
Re: (Score:2)
When I hear 80 gigawatts of new coal plants, I see an opportunity for international cooperation to solve big problems like this (it's not just India) & develop ways/models/pathways to development without resorting to coal or at least minimising it. Apparently, renewables are cheaper than coal but we lack the infrastructure to implement them quickly enough. Let's see how smart we all really are how far we can change that. Why not?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it doesn't matter who emits it. So those _people_ emitting more, need to emit less yes?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it doesn't matter who emits it. So those _people_ emitting more, need to emit less yes?
Every country needs to emit less of the greenhouse gases. From top to bottom. Third world countries need to jump beyond the fossil fuels so they don't have to rebuild everything later.
Think of it kind of like the cellular phone structure. While the first world built a huge network of copper wired phone lines, much of the third world is adopting cellular. And it is much better than the copper infrastructure.
If I were to give an example, Youtube has a lot of videos of machinists and foundry workers in
Re: (Score:2)
The google shows 2.05 births per woman (2020)
Want to reduce poverty? Fix the above stat.
And yes other countries need to as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The google shows 2.05 births per woman (2020)
Want to reduce poverty? Fix the above stat.
And yes other countries need to as well.
I was shocked to see the population stats for India. In 2023, they are almost 1.5 billion people in population. The projection is to be at 1.7 billion in 2050.
In 1975 the population was 500 million and it doubled to a billion people in 2010.
Between 2010 and 2023 they added another 500 million people. In 13 years they added the same number of people that the entire country had in 1975. They added almost two USA's to their population in those 13 years.
And some dude is busting my chops for not thin
Global South (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://worldpopulationreview.... [worldpopul...review.com]
Re: (Score:1)
I strongly object to directionist terms like "north" and "south" and "east" and "west".
We should all be self identifying our own direction or multiple directions or no directions at all if that's how we feel about our place in the world.
Directionist terms are hateful,and hurtful microaggressions and violence.
B.S. (Score:2)
>> I strongly object to directionist terms like "north" and "south" and "east" and "west".
B.S.
Let's call them "SuperWealthy Wealthy Poor, extra-poor" instead.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer "poor" and "the 1%ers who need to be killed and eaten".
Re: (Score:3)
I'm just confused a country north of the equator wants to be the leader of "the global south".
Re: (Score:2)
That'd be the 'western' nation of New Zealand, currently in a +13 (summer) time zone.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just confused a country north of the equator wants to be the leader of "the global south".
My guess is the "global south" is anything south of the 30N latitude. It's all relative, kind of like in the USA "the south" is marked at about 39N. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Putting the dividing line at 30N mean "the global south" includes India, Mexico, much of Africa, and Indonesia. That also includes New Zealand and Australia, which is likely considered more "west" than "south". South Africa might have a few words about being "south" also.
impossible to stay within 1.5 degree target (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
2C is already a given at that point. Climate change is like being in a car in which when you hit the brakes, it starts slowing down 20 years later.
As humans are basically animals, and can only react to immediate stimuli (despite thinking we are so smart), we will likely wait for real shit to hit the fan before taking into meaningful action, which means more shit will hit the fan before those actions actually start having an impact. In all likehood, some of that shit will include political instabilities, war
Re: (Score:2)
Glow Ball South (Score:2)
Anyone who uses the phrase "glow ball south" immediately loses my attention.
Wants to kill another 10 ppl because of others (Score:2)
We are looking at SERIOUS issues with AGW. It is no longer time for nations to increase emissions, but for all to DECREASE THEM.
At this time, if we are going to get serious and stop global warming, then emissions can not be allowed to grow. period.
I have suggested for sometime that we need nations to put on a slowly increasing tax on locally consumed goods/services based on where the WORST, in terms of emissions directi
Personal air conditioners for India (Score:2)
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
Maybe some business could sell personal air condiitoners to the Indian population. Sony makes the Reon Pocket, which is expensive and doesn't last long enough without an external power supply. However there used to be other cheaper Peltier chip devices which worked well to cool an individual person. Might mean the difference betw
The China and India arguments hide a deceit (Score:2)
When China and India are asked to cut emissions they shout "LOOK OVER THERE!" and point at the West. We're all supposed to ignore the huge number of NEW coal-burning plants they keep building, based on some fake claim of injustice in which THEY are supposedly innocent victims and places like the US are supposedly victimizers who need to suffer now. This very idea is bovine excrement.
Consider:
1. When the West INVENTED most modern technology, it paid the highest costs to get it (having to do all the R&D a
Median Income Per Day in India = $3.89 (Score:2)
Median Income Per Day
India = $3.89
China = $10.72
Korea = $37.72
Japan = $115.66
https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]