A superficial deal
Thank you for this article. It is an important counterperspective to what I have heard from the Western media. I concur that India as a nation should not be under any obligation to curb its emissions. However, I would like to comment that many rich, urban Indians would have footprints closer to the Western norm. An SUV has a similar negative impact wherever it is in the world. So in my view, it is our responsibility to reduce emissions and definitely in our interests to invest in a more sustainable economy.
An interesting article. But I am not sure that both the countries would have "equal" per capita emissions in 2030. Has that been stated explicitly? All I have seen is a loose commitment by China to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions by "about 2030" and a US aim to cut its emissions by 26-28 per cent by 2025.
"US-China climate deal: maker or breaker?" (December 1-15, 2014) was an excellent article on the carbon agreement between the two highly polluting countries. I had no idea it was so superficial in practice. Oddly, neither the media nor the NGOs of the US are able to understand the inequity or lack of fairness, especially in relation to India and Indonesia. Why is there such a lack of comprehension?
The US should stop fracking for shale because that generates maximum greenhouse gases. It has made a compromise with China, which also plans for producing non-conventional oil and gas and carry out other highly polluting activities.
No bank loans
This is with reference to "Dyeing cities" (December 1-15, 2014). Bank loans to industrial units which cause extreme pollution should be stopped. An appropriate legal mechanism should be put in place to tackle such issues. This should be done as soon as there is prima facia evidence against the unit that is causing pollution. Court proceedings can follow later.
TARIQUE AZIZ / CSE