The India Climate Observatory

Commentary, action and research on climate and development in India

  • Home
  • About
  • Monsoon 2018
  • Current
  • Bulletin
  • Contact
  • Announcements

Why climate action must beware the fakery of funds

July 4, 2015 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

Residents use a boat to cross flood waters in Kota Bahru on December 28, 2014. Photo: RT / AFP / Mohd Rasfan. Photo by AFP Photo / Mohd Rasfan

Residents use a boat to cross flood waters in Kota Bahru on December 28, 2014. Photo: RT / AFP / Mohd Rasfan. Photo by AFP Photo / Mohd Rasfan

We call upon the Ministry of Environment, Government of India, to stop pursuing the so-called Green Climate Fund as the means with which action to manage climate change can be financially supported. This so-called fund is in the end a means for the Western world – West Europe, Scandinavia, USA with Britain and Canada in tow, Australia and New Zealand, a feckless Japan and ditto South Korea – to maintain the empty but loud institutions they have set up by the dozens in the cause of climate change.

Inter Press Service has reported that the United Nations is seeking 100 billion US dollars per year by 2020 as part of a Green Climate Fund (GCF) “aimed at supporting developing countries strengthen their resilience and help adapt themselves to meet the foreboding challenges”. This is meretricious nonsense. Countries that the UN system, and the agencies of monetary ruin – World Bank, IMF, ADB and the like – call ‘developing’ do not need the prattling office-bearers of a crony international system to advise them. Countries of the South have plentiful intellectual, practical, financial and social resources to deal with climate change and the host of problems the Western countries have burdened our world with.

The Green Climate Fund, says the IPS report, may not be as realistic in its objectives as the Western-OECD alliance pretends but supporters of this Fund (naturally) are more concerned instead with how the target can be reached or neared: naturally because that is how they will derive a continuing relevance and legitimacy – both empty as far as we are concerned – which allows them to run expensive institutions and pay out immodest consultancies that serve only the Western-OECD alliance. Ignored by this glib army is the fact that, beginning from their own austerity-wracked countries, public finance for such profligacy is absent. Still they demand, like fahrenheit Shylocks, public finance for subsidies with which to “attract and leverage private investments”.

A host of ancillary agencies contributes to perpetuating this long-running fraud. Amongst the confused babble of Western-OECD support for the so-called Green Climate Fund can be found three common clauses: one, that developed nations should commit to increasing all public funding flows to 2020; two, that developed countries use new and innovative sources of finance toward the 2020 goal (such as redirected fossil fuel subsidies, carbon market revenues, financial transaction taxes, export credits); three, that all parties should clarify the definition of climate finance and development of methodologies so that accounting and reporting are improved.

These are nothing but cunning gambits advanced as justification for the continuing tenure of the Western-OECD climate-related institutions and their circles of charmed academic and finance cronies. First, developed countries have fallen short of basic overseas aid commitments for the last two generations, never mind climate finance. Under continuing austerity, it is foolish for the UN and its supporters on this subject to still preach in favour of a funding mechanism that rests on Western largesse.

Second, the ‘new and innovative’ has been experimented with for a decade with carbon exchanges and has made no impact (just as ‘deregulated’ energy markets, which are older, have not led to more sensible energy use by consumers or producers). But this is proposed in order to cement the positions of a new trading class, and its banking adjutants, in the area of climate finance. Third, the call for definitions and methodologies is part of the Western-led drive towards normative standards for the world, which will rely on its own Western bureaucracy to enforce the next mutation of trade sanctions on independent-minded countries and Southern country blocs – climate sanctions.

Our message to the profiteers of this true emerging market is: we can see through your ruse and know your game. Stop it now.

– Rahul Goswami

Filed Under: Reports & Comment Tagged With: Britain, carbon market, climate, climate finance, environment, fossil fuel, France, Germany, green climate fund, OECD, overseas aid, subsidies, USA

At home and abroad

August 18, 2014 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

RG_ICP_ICW_3

The size and diversity of India’s federal structure (36 states and union territories) is steering this government towards an arrangement wherein the assessment of development needs and outcomes is carried out at least at the state level. As the new India Climate Watch has pointed out, this is where India’s contribution to the international climate change negotiations appears quite out of phase with the climate aspect of development discussions and actions in these 36 states and union territories.

ICW_3_coverWe ask whether the state action plans on climate change (some of which in their final forms are now several years old) are fit for the task of guiding policy at this level, a serious and urgent question which, in our view, ought to precede India’s taking of international positions on climate change adaptation and mitigation measures (including financing and technology transfer).

With the meeting of the BASIC group of countries on 7-8 August 2014 in New Delhi, a stretch of negotiating has begun for India which will continue with greater intensity until the 21st Conference of Parties in Paris in December 2015. This is seen by climate negotiators as the final stretch of the Kyoto Protocol period and we can expect a flurry of weighty summations to be produced during this time, which may influence how the successor to the Kyoto Protocol will begin to be framed, a procedure that COP 21 will be devoted to.

For India, this period will proceed in parallel with the first term of the NDA government, which will be expected to deliver much more substantial leadership on matters of equity in the international arena, and which is already committed to strengthening the federal approach at home. Our view is that these are not exclusive, and that one can guide the other.

Under direction from the central government, our states have been preparing climate action plans geared to their conditions. The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change reports that 28 of these plans have been prepared, and how these will integrate with the economic and social imperatives that each state government frames differently has not been explored. Until that happens as a policy commitment, the state action plans remain academic exercises with action on the ground in the form of relatively small projects channelled through ‘technology transfer’ agencies. These may help indicate how feasible a future course is but which is weak without state government and industry resolve. [Click this link for the India Climate Watch 2014 03 (pdf 186kb).]

Filed Under: India Climate Watch, Reports & Comment Tagged With: adaptation, BASIC, climate, climate watch, COP, emissions, green climate fund, India, Kyoto Protocol, mitigation, state action plan, technology transfer, UNFCCC

Boarding the technology omnibus

June 27, 2014 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

RG_ICP_UNEA_blog_201406India’s Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar has attended the first United Nations Environment Assembly, held in Nairobi, Kenya, on 23-27 June 2014. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described the UNEA is an “historic event for all of us, set to define not only the future of the United Nations Environment Programme, but to support further the institutional framework and programmatic platform for sustainable development and set the environmental agenda for the world to follow”.

At the first UNEA assembly, Javadekar made two points we find require critical discussion. The first is: “India strongly feels that technology transfer is the most important means of implementation and an effective and functional Technology Facilitation Mechanism (TFM) is a must for a meaningful Post-2015 Development Agenda.”

We think such a blanket statement concerning ‘technology’ cannot be held up at international fora as being the consensus view of India’s citizens. There has for the last decade been scarcely any public consultation held at the local level – keeping in mind the rights of urban local bodies and panchayats in determining their development options and needs – concerning technology, its forms and the ways in which it may be used. Thus Javadekar’s statement is unrepresentative.

The Technology Facilitation Mechanism he referred to is considered – in UN and other inter-governmental fora – as being able to meet the technology transfer needs of developing countries in various sectors such as health, energy, food, water, sanitation. The view in such fora is that ‘developing’ countries need to be ‘assisted’ in technology needs assessment, adaptation, roll-out and human and institutional capacity building.

Javadekar’s second statement is: “I have a suggestion to make in this regard. It has been agreed to establish Green Climate Fund of US$ 100 billion per year by 2020. This amount should be utilised to purchase IPRs of most crucial technologies for public good and these technologies should then be freely available to the developing countries to facilitate sustainable development.”

We think this is an incomplete statement that rests on a few techno-centric views, which references intellectual property in a casual manner (and which also ignores the central aspects of the widespread opposition in India to genetically modified organisms for example), and which has overlooked entirely traditional and indigenous knowledge. The latter part of this second statement, “should then be freely available”, is useful from a South-South perspective and should be treated as such.

Filed Under: Current Tagged With: green climate fund, India, intellectual property, IPR, Javadekar, MoEF, technology transfer, UN Environment Assembly, UNEP

Indiaclimate twitter

Tweets by @Indiaclimate

Notable

Between contemplation and climate

Whether or not the USA, Europe, the Western world, the industrialised Eastern world (China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan), adhere to or not their paltry promises about being more responsible concerning the factors that lead to climate change, is of very little concern to us. We have never set any store by international agreements on climate […]

The ‘Hindu’, ignorant about weather and climate, but runs down IMD

We find objectionable the report by ‘The Hindu’ daily newspaper accusing the India Meteorological Department of scientific shortcoming (‘IMD gets its August forecast wrong’, 1 September 2016). The report claims that the IMD in June 2016 had forecast that rains for August would be more than usual but that the recorded rain was less than […]

dialogue

  • Misreading monsoon | Resources Research on Misreading monsoon
  • Satish on A tribute to the weathermen of Bharat
  • Climate portal editor on A tribute to the weathermen of Bharat
  • Climate portal editor on A tribute to the weathermen of Bharat
  • Climate portal editor on A tribute to the weathermen of Bharat

Categories

Copyright © 2025 indiaclimateportal.org.