Meeting Shows U.S.-India Split on Emissions
It was supposed to be a showcase for how the United States and India can find common cause in fighting climate change: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton toured an innovative, energy-efficient office building on Sunday in this city on the outskirts of New Delhi.
But simmering grievances about how countries should share the burden of cutting greenhouse gases abruptly changed the mood. No sooner had Mrs. Clinton marveled at the building’s environmentally friendly features — like windows that flood rooms with light but keep out heat — than her hosts vented frustration at American pressure on India to cut its emissions.
In a meeting with Mrs. Clinton, India’s environment and forests minister, Jairam Ramesh, said there was “no case” for the West to push India to reduce carbon dioxide emissions when it already had among the lowest levels of emissions on a per capita basis. “If this pressure is not enough,” he said, “we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours.”
Rather than projecting solidarity, the visit ended up laying bare the deep divide between developed and developing countries on climate policy — a gulf the Obama administration will have to bridge as it tries to forge a new global agreement on climate change later this year.
Mrs. Clinton, in the first visit to India by a top Obama administration official, offered reassurances that the United States had no intention of forcing India into an economically crippling deal.
“No one wants to, in any way, stall or undermine economic growth that is necessary to lift millions more people out of poverty,” Mrs. Clinton said at a news conference. “The United States does not, and will not, do anything that would limit India’s economic progress.”
American officials said they did not expect these differences to be aired during what was supposed to be an upbeat event, focusing on technology. But they said they did not feel betrayed.
To some extent, India’s tough tone is a negotiating tactic as it and other countries prepare to advance their positions in talks leading up to a critical United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen in December.
“We are simply not in a position to take over legally binding emission reduction targets,” Mr. Ramesh declared at the news conference. “That does not mean that we are oblivious of our responsibilities.”
India’s refusal to accept mandatory national cuts in emissions is neither new nor unique. China also opposes a deal with compulsory targets. Both countries say their economic growth should not be constrained when the West never faced such restrictions during its industrialization.
India’s stance may reflect its pique at a bill passed in Washington by the House of Representatives, which would impose sanctions on countries that did not accept binding emissions cuts.
It may also reflect domestic political pressure because India acceded this month to an “aspirational” goal by the Group of 8 industrialized countries to cap the rise in temperatures because of global warming to two degrees Celsius. The group had sought a pledge of far-reaching reductions in global emissions.
Even the presence here of Todd Stern, Mrs. Clinton’s special envoy for climate change, has raised eyebrows: On Saturday, The Times of India published an article with the headline “Climate man’s visit shocks India.” American officials insist Mrs. Clinton had long planned to bring Mr. Stern, who said climate change presented an opportunity for India to invest in windmills and solar panels. “India, with its knowledge base and entrepreneurial talent and élan, is well positioned to be a winner,” he said.
Mr. Ramesh leavened his tough words with a promise of cooperation in “green technology.” He proposed teaming up with the United States on solar energy and biomass, and setting up Indian-American centers to study the long-term effects of greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite India’s opposition to binding reductions, he said the Indian government was committed to reaching an agreement in Copenhagen. “It is possible for us to narrow our positions,” he said.
Mrs. Clinton also sought to put a good face on the differences. “We have many more areas of agreement than has perhaps been appreciated,” she said, “and what we’re looking for is a way to have a framework that includes everyone and which demands certain steps.”
She still seemed fascinated by her tour of the office building, a squat structure built around a circular atrium and known as the ITC Green Center, which has been certified by an American green building council with its highest classification.
Its owner, ITC Ltd., is a conglomerate that operates hotels and owns India’s second-largest cigarette maker, a line of business that Indian officials say has made it eager to be regarded as a good corporate citizen. Mrs. Clinton compared the building to great Indian monuments like the Taj Mahal, though she conceded, “No one will confuse it with the Taj Mahal.”
Sources: Newyork Times
But simmering grievances about how countries should share the burden of cutting greenhouse gases abruptly changed the mood. No sooner had Mrs. Clinton marveled at the building’s environmentally friendly features — like windows that flood rooms with light but keep out heat — than her hosts vented frustration at American pressure on India to cut its emissions.
In a meeting with Mrs. Clinton, India’s environment and forests minister, Jairam Ramesh, said there was “no case” for the West to push India to reduce carbon dioxide emissions when it already had among the lowest levels of emissions on a per capita basis. “If this pressure is not enough,” he said, “we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours.”
Rather than projecting solidarity, the visit ended up laying bare the deep divide between developed and developing countries on climate policy — a gulf the Obama administration will have to bridge as it tries to forge a new global agreement on climate change later this year.
Mrs. Clinton, in the first visit to India by a top Obama administration official, offered reassurances that the United States had no intention of forcing India into an economically crippling deal.
“No one wants to, in any way, stall or undermine economic growth that is necessary to lift millions more people out of poverty,” Mrs. Clinton said at a news conference. “The United States does not, and will not, do anything that would limit India’s economic progress.”
American officials said they did not expect these differences to be aired during what was supposed to be an upbeat event, focusing on technology. But they said they did not feel betrayed.
To some extent, India’s tough tone is a negotiating tactic as it and other countries prepare to advance their positions in talks leading up to a critical United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen in December.
“We are simply not in a position to take over legally binding emission reduction targets,” Mr. Ramesh declared at the news conference. “That does not mean that we are oblivious of our responsibilities.”
India’s refusal to accept mandatory national cuts in emissions is neither new nor unique. China also opposes a deal with compulsory targets. Both countries say their economic growth should not be constrained when the West never faced such restrictions during its industrialization.
India’s stance may reflect its pique at a bill passed in Washington by the House of Representatives, which would impose sanctions on countries that did not accept binding emissions cuts.
It may also reflect domestic political pressure because India acceded this month to an “aspirational” goal by the Group of 8 industrialized countries to cap the rise in temperatures because of global warming to two degrees Celsius. The group had sought a pledge of far-reaching reductions in global emissions.
Even the presence here of Todd Stern, Mrs. Clinton’s special envoy for climate change, has raised eyebrows: On Saturday, The Times of India published an article with the headline “Climate man’s visit shocks India.” American officials insist Mrs. Clinton had long planned to bring Mr. Stern, who said climate change presented an opportunity for India to invest in windmills and solar panels. “India, with its knowledge base and entrepreneurial talent and élan, is well positioned to be a winner,” he said.
Mr. Ramesh leavened his tough words with a promise of cooperation in “green technology.” He proposed teaming up with the United States on solar energy and biomass, and setting up Indian-American centers to study the long-term effects of greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite India’s opposition to binding reductions, he said the Indian government was committed to reaching an agreement in Copenhagen. “It is possible for us to narrow our positions,” he said.
Mrs. Clinton also sought to put a good face on the differences. “We have many more areas of agreement than has perhaps been appreciated,” she said, “and what we’re looking for is a way to have a framework that includes everyone and which demands certain steps.”
She still seemed fascinated by her tour of the office building, a squat structure built around a circular atrium and known as the ITC Green Center, which has been certified by an American green building council with its highest classification.
Its owner, ITC Ltd., is a conglomerate that operates hotels and owns India’s second-largest cigarette maker, a line of business that Indian officials say has made it eager to be regarded as a good corporate citizen. Mrs. Clinton compared the building to great Indian monuments like the Taj Mahal, though she conceded, “No one will confuse it with the Taj Mahal.”
Sources: Newyork Times
posted by Madhav Prathapa at 10:35 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home