Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.

  • It is unfortunate that with

    It is unfortunate that with twenty years of climate negotiation under UNFCCC we are in squire one. The situation epitomizes a Nepali proverb "Big bulls are fighting and the calves are being trampled down in the process.

    Probably every one agrees over the principle of climate justice. Countries like USA has definitely taken unfair atmospheric space in terms of GHG emission. But the point is that shall we watch the earth system collapse by the time we are able to sort out who made the mistake in the first place. I wish we could defer our differences till a point we are able to bring the earth into the safe limit in terms of global temperature rise (which of course is mere wishes as we are quickly heading to 4 degree world). But let us stop fighting and and try to rescue the world first. We will be able to talk about equity etc only if the earth system survives.

    Posted by: Anonymous | 6 years ago | Reply
  • I would like to reiterate and

    I would like to reiterate and repeat my comment on Failure of Doha Negotiations:

    Failure of the week long informal negotiations on climate change in Bangkok on September 5 was not a mystery. The intension of the developed countries is loud and clear. They would like to continue with the superiority in trade and weapons that they have achieved by impoverishment of resources of the developing and least developed countries by waging and winning wars, and doling out economic aid, loans. and arms.

    In order to sustain their superiority, they would advise others to adopt austerity measures while they themselves would remain wasteful. [They here does not mean just the Americans; it means every one who has gone up or is trying to go up the ladder of growth at the fastest rate, knowing fully well that fast rates are non-sustainable. Non-sustainable because they are consumption oriented and hence bound to impoverish the resources.

    This is what they did at Bangkok when they pushed for diversionary tactics such as measures to reduce emissions by institutions and initiatives outside UNFCCC. These measures included reducing emissions through the control of hydrofluorocarbons, methane and black carbon. They did not make any mention of the lethal weapons or the carpet bombing or drone attacks, because if they did so their superiority would be jeopardized.

    I have already explained in no ambiguous terms that the production of CFCs, GHGs including excessive amount of water vapour is the result of intensifying the anthropogenic activity initiated and cashed by the developed countries. The harm that such activities have done to the environment of the earth is irreversible. Yet they would like to remain in command and for that matter they must maintain their growth rate.

    Sustainability principles on the other hand demand that excesses must be avoided and wastes must be minimized. To achieve this end the race for superiority must be given a grinding halt. It is easier said than done because no one would like to go back to stone age. But with so much of sophisticated arms around produced only to achieve a higher overkill capacity, are we not heading towards the stone wall, if not stone age.

    Sustainability principles clearly define arms build up as non-sustainable. The path delineated by these principles suggests peace to be the guiding principles of sustainability. But the superior nations maintain that they have engaged their enemies in war to bring in peace. So Sir, the vicious circle of social pollution is set into perpetual motion and will remain in motion because that is the way to go up the ladder of growth.

    When we prepare for any such meeting as at Doha, there should be only one agenda and that should be to devise a strategy for sustainable growth. This will limit the growth processes to sustainable living and would delimit arms production and perhaps that may be one way to live in harmony and peace.

    Dr. Mirza Arshad Ali Beg
    Former Director General, PCSIR, Karachi, Pakistan

    Posted by: Anonymous | 6 years ago | Reply
Scroll To Top