The “Bonn” of contention

As the Bonn climate talks have come to a close we would like to bid farewell to frequent long blog posts and continue to facilitate a knowledge dialogue with our negotiators and key officials who have a direct stake in the process to forming our Bonn of contention for 10-14th August when all climate leaders would be meeting again. [caption id="" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Dr.Shyam Saran at the press conference"][/caption] For India, since only a very limited population has its outreach in the internet world, we plan to get the word out through vernacular media into different and remote regions of India. Considering India has around 20 official languages and over 100 different dialects, we pay respect to our rich diversity by approaching outreach through radio and local language newspapers along with blogging. On 12th of June, Mr Shyam Saran was extremely unhappy with the pace at which the negotiations were proceeding, as he said so in the press conference he held at the UNFCCC negotiations. Through the various meetings at Bonn and some post Bonn meetings with some high level officials involved associated with the delegations, the following main points came through: 1. We are very positive to carrying forward the present Kyoto protocol and will work towards to an agreement by Copenhagen but do acknowledge that the present negotiations are proceeding at a very slow pace 2. We will continue to working towards combating climate change through our National Action Plan on Climate Change and our accompanying 8 missions which will be open for public post July. But, we will only be willing to scale up our activities if Annex 1 countries are willing to transfer appropriate technology and finance for the same. 3. Annex 1 countries should comply by their promises of commitments to reduce and should lead the way in putting binding targets, those of which should be in the IPCC range, preferably 40% by 1990 emission levels. 4. Combating climate change should not be restricted to the reduction commitments only. It is a much larger prospective of shifting towards a low carbon pathway and we should keep this in mind specifically in the AWG LCA – long term action meetings and for the shared vision. 5. Talks about getting climate change on the BRIC – Brazil, Russia , India and China agenda in particular energy security. So, what is the real bone of contention, all the world leaders come together to discuss climate change very year? The underlying question is that of political power. When the west underwent industrialisation historically, it decided to commit to a path that polluted the whole world. But, this is what made them what they are today. Why would someone want to give up political power? Or not want to throw out the competition? Is that why the Annex 1 always wants the developing world to reduce its emissions? Are they scared that economies like India and China will develop at such a pace that they will overtake the west? The emissions emitted during their industrialisation are far more than the emissions made by us today. So is this fair? Is this really about climate change? Is this about political power in the world? Is this why the deadlock still exists? [caption id="" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="India at the plenary"][/caption]