Dear Friend,
Students rose up across India against the unconstitutional Citizenship Amendment Act after their compatriots in Jamia Milia Islamia were violently beaten up in their campus yesterday.
Kindly support honest journalism to survive. https://countercurrents.org/subscription/
If you think the contents of this news letter are critical for the dignified living and survival of humanity and other species on earth, please forward it to your friends and spread the word. It's time for humanity to come together as one family! You can subscribe to our news letter here http://www.countercurrents.org/news-letter/.
In Solidarity
Binu Mathew
Editor
Countercurrents.org
Students Across India Rise Up In Anger After Jamia Milia Crack Down Against Citizenship Amendment Act
by Countercurrents Collective
Students rose up across India against the
unconstitutional Citizenship Amendment Act after their compatriots in Jamia Milia Islamia were violently beaten up in their campus yesterday.
Delhi Police Forcefully Enter Jamia Milia Islamia University; Many Students Injured
Co- written by Badre Alam Khan, Wakeel Ahmed and Wasim Ahsan
The Delhi Police have forcefully entered Jamia Milia Islamia (JMI) university campus without the any permission of university administration (as the Chief Proctor of Jamia has officially tweeted) and started fired tear gas inside campus and even students studying in the library of JMI. Some students were severely injured. And situations of Jamia and its vicinity are still extremely tense.
STOP! The Police violence against students and those protesting the CAA!
by People's Union For Civil Liberties
PUCL strongly condemns the motivated, targeted and brutal attack by the CRPF and Delhi Police on students of Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia Millia Islamia University in Delhi yesterday, Sunday 15th December, 2019 causing serious injuries to over 150 students including girls, and also arrest of scores of students and youngsters. By all media reports and eye witness accounts, the brutal charge of the police forces was unprovoked and unwarranted as the students were peacefully protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 and the NRC.
Renegades vs the true children of Mother India
by Cynthia Stephen
Schemers who have come into power on false pretences and killings of the innocent, are now looting the country of its wealth and enabling the flight of capital abroad, travelling
abroad on official tours while arranging to enrich their crony capitalist friends. They are attacking students and activists who are defending our human rights and democratic institutions.
Anti CAB Protests: Hope for protecting India
by T Navin
India is witnessing a set of massive protests against the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB). These protests do offer a ray of hope of preserving and protecting the idea of ‘secular’ India. What the parliament sought to undo to the constitution through the majoritarian numbers is sought to be redone by the mass protests.
Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 and the threats upon the Assamese Community
Co-Written by Bishaldeep Kakati and Pranjit Das
In the longer run, it would be really necessary for the Assamese community to somehow nullify the
impact of the Act upon the state, or it would be in complete disarray. But the bigger question that still lingers around is: When the government would wake up to hear the voices of the people and come up with better Acts for the indigenous people?
COP25 produces nothing but compromise and disappointment
by Countercurrents Collective
The longest ever UN climate talks on record – Conference of Parties (COP)25 – have finally ended in Madrid with nothing, but a compromise deal. Many of those in attendance were unhappy with the overall package, feeling it did not reflect the urgency of the science. A disappointment has overwhelmed many COP25 delegates.
The longest ever UN climate talks on record – Conference of Parties (COP)25 – have finally ended in Madrid with nothing, but a compromise deal. Many of those in attendance were unhappy with the overall package, feeling it did not reflect the urgency of the science. A disappointment has overwhelmed many COP25 delegates.
Exhausted delegates reached agreement on the key question of increasing the global response to curbing carbon.
All countries will need to put new climate pledges on the table by the time of the next major conference in Glasgow next year.
After two extra days and nights of negotiations, the COP25 delegates finally agreed a deal that will see new, improved carbon cutting plans on the table by the time of the Glasgow conference next year.
All parties will need to address the gap between what the science says is necessary to avoid dangerous climate change, and the current state of play which would see the world go past this threshold in the 2030s.
Supported by the European Union and small island states, the push for higher ambition was opposed by a range of countries including the US, Brazil, India and China.
However, a compromise was agreed with the richer nations having to show that they have kept their promises on climate change in the years before 2020.
Spain’s acting Minister for the Ecological Transition Teresa Ribera said the mandate was clear.
“Countries have to present more ambitious NDCs [nationally determined contributions] in 2020 than what we have today because it is important to address science and the demands of people, as well as commit ourselves to do more and faster.”
Next year’s big climate conference will be held in Glasgow, Scotland. Decisions on many important issues including the thorny question of carbon markets have been delayed until Glasgow.
“Thankfully the weak rules on a market based mechanism, promoted by Brazil and Australia, that would have undermined efforts to reduce emissions has been shelved and the fight on that can continue next year at COP26 in Glasgow,” said Mohamed Adow, with the group Power Shift Africa.
However, negotiators will be satisfied to have kept the process alive after these difficult and complex talks in Madrid.
After two weeks of talks, many issues remain unresolved.
Countries failed to agree on many of the hoped for outcomes, including rules to set up a global carbon trading system and a system to channel new finance to countries facing the impacts of climate change.
Australia and Brazil continued to push for a system with loopholes, which allowed initial double counting of emissions reductions and trading of Kyoto-era credits – explained below.
But other countries say this would undermine the entire market. As tensions peaked on Saturday, a group of 31 countries led by Costa Rica signed up to the “San Jose Principles”, a set of minimum standards for ensuring the integrity of the global carbon market.
Some countries, including Australia, Brazil and India, want to be able to use old, unspent CDM credits in the new system. Australia openly plans on using its 370 million CDM credits to meet its emission reduction goals.
But many countries are concerned allowing CDM carryover could flood the market with cheap credits that don’t represent real emissions reductions, undermining the integrity of the entire system. This is because CDMs represent emissions cuts made well before 2020, the year the Paris Agreement formally begins, and there serious doubts over whether many CDM-registered projects have even driven real emissions cuts.
Little consensus was found on this at the talks. The draft text proposes that Kyoto-era credits could be accounted against climate pledges until 2025, a view that many countries find unacceptable. Much of the rest of the text remains vague.
Guterres disappointed
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said he was disappointed by the result of the COP.
“The international community lost an important opportunity to show increased ambition on mitigation, adaptation and finance to tackle the climate crisis,” he said, quoted by AFP.
“A far cry”
Laurence Tubiana from the European Climate Foundation, and an architect of the Paris agreement, described the result as “really a mixed bag, and a far cry from what science tells us is needed.”
“Major players who needed to deliver in Madrid did not live up to expectations, but thanks to a progressive alliance of small island states, European, African and Latin American countries, we obtained the best possible outcome, against the will of big polluters.”
The pledge that was made in Paris
Countries agreed in Paris in 2015 to revisit their climate pledges by 2020. But many countries were pushing this year for a clear call for all countries to submit more ambitious climate pledges next year. This is seen as a key means of ensuring countries put a focus on improving their current pledges, as well as empowering civil society to hold them to account.
But countries such as China and Brazil opposed placing any obligation on countries to submit enhanced pledges next year, arguing it should be each country’s own decision. They instead argued the focus should be on pre-2020 action by developing countries to meet their previous pledges.
Countries such as China and India made it clear they would not support strong language on raising ambition without a similar call for rich countries to provide the finance and support promised to developing countries.
They called for the creation of a “work program” to close the gap of commitments made by rich countries before 2020.
But the EU opposed this, saying the focus needs to be on future ambition under the Paris Agreement, which applies to all countries.
Other poorer developing countries made it clear that, while they support pre-2020 action, higher ambition for the future from all countries should not be conditional on it.
As talks reached their final days, tensions grew after a draft decision removed any call for countries to “update” or “enhance” their climate plans by 2020. Instead, it only invited them to “communicate” them in 2020 – far weaker language, which put no obligation on enhanced ambition.
Reacting to this, a high ambition coalition, led by the Marshall Islands and backed by the EU Commission and a number of European countries, made it clear that final COP25 decision text must include a clear call for enhanced ambition in 2020.
Some ambitious words only
In the end, the final text added some more ambitious wording back in, pointing directly to the emissions gap between what country pledges currently add up to and what is needed to keep global temperature rise well below 2C.
It also “recalls that new climate pledges should “represent a progression” beyond previous pledges and represent the highest possible ambition. This text was an improvement on previous drafts but “still weak”, according to Naoyuki Yamagishi of WWF Japan.
In the final text, countries agreed to hold pre-2020 roundtables. The outcomes of these pre-2020 roundtables will also be rounded up in a report in 2021, which will in turn feed into a review on progress towards meeting the Paris Agreement’s “well below 2C” goal.
It did not specifically say whether the results of these roundtables would feed directly into the global stock take set to occur in 2023 under the Paris agreement.
In the end a mere two paragraphs summed up plans to continue talks in 2020. This did acknowledge the draft texts from this year’s negotiations as a basis for future talks, meaning countries will not have to start from scratch. However, none of these texts have found consensus.
“The current text preserves the possibility of carry over, which should certainly be avoided next year,” said Li.
Human rights
Indigenous and human rights groups have pushed for the new carbon market rules to require projects to respect human rights, protect indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups, consult meaningfully with local communities and set up an independent grievance program for projects gone awry.
The current draft text has no mention of human rights, asking only that projects shall “avoid negative environmental and social impacts”. It says consultations should take place “where consistent with applicable domestic arrangements” and that further safeguards could be reviewed by 2028.
Several countries voiced support for human rights protections during the final plenary on Sunday morning.
The texts are ”woefully inadequate” in regards to protecting people on the ground from harm caused by activities under the new market mechanisms,” says Erika Lennon, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). “Delaying the decision to Cop26 was the only responsible decision.”
Loss and damage
Some developed countries are extremely wary of language around loss and damage finance. The US was particularly resistant to any discussion about new areas of work even for existing funds. Other developed countries are more willing to engage.
A newly formed “Santiago network” will lead more work on how to minimize, avoid and recover from loss and damage.
But Sven Harmeling, climate change lead for Care International, called the loss and damage outcome “disappointing”, in particular pointing to the vague mandate for the Green Climate Fund on whether and how it should incorporate loss and damages into its remit.
A last minute fight about long-term finance meant there was no outcome on this, though talks will continue next year.
The UK is one of several European countries, which yesterday supported the ‘San Jose principles’ for environmental integrity of the new carbon market. It is also a member of the high-ambition coalition of countries, which pushed hard this year for a clear call for enhanced climate plans in 2020.
“Disastrous”
Kenyan climate campaigner Mohamad Adow called the Madrid outcome “disastrous, profoundly distressing”.
“We cannot just copy and paste the text from four years ago. We need to recognize that since then the climate emergency has got worse and public anger has got fiercer,” he said.
Strengthen political will
Carolina Schmidt, Chilean environment minister and conference president said: “The consensus is still not there to increase ambition to the levels that we need. Before finishing, I want to make a clear and strong call to the world to strengthen political will and accelerate climate action to the speed that the world needs. The new generations expect more from us.”
“Missing in action”
Alden Meyer, strategy chief at the Union of Concerned Scientists said: “Never have I seen such a disconnect between what the science requires and what the climate negotiations are delivering in terms of meaningful action. Most of the world’s biggest emitting countries are missing in action and resisting calls to raise their ambition.”
“It is extraordinarily difficult”
Sir David King, British government representative at the 2015 Paris climate talks said: “If the United States is not backing an agreement that is meaningful it is extraordinarily difficult for the rest of the world to come to an agreement. And I’m afraid as long as we have Trump in the United States with President Bolsonaro in Brazil it is extraordinarily difficult to get all of those countries to agree.”
Climate Change Accounting: The Failure of COP25
by Dr Binoy Kampmark
As Climate Home News noted, Durban still stood out as being worthier for having
“produced a deal between countries that laid the foundations for the Paris Agreement.” In stark contrast, “Madrid produced a weak gesture toward raising climate targets and failed to agree for the second year in a row on rules to govern carbon markets.”
Prior to the UN Convention on Climate Change talks held in Madrid, the sense that tradition would assert itself was hard to buck. Weariness and frustration came in the wake of initial high minded optimism. Delegates spent an extra two days and nights attempting to reach a deal covering carbon reduction measures before the Glasgow conference in 2020. The gathering became the longest set of climate talks in history, exceeding the time spent at the 2011 Durban meeting by 44 hours.
As Climate Home News noted, Durban still stood out as being worthier for having “produced a deal between countries that laid the foundations for the Paris Agreement.” In stark contrast, “Madrid produced a weak gesture toward raising climate targets and failed to agree for the second year in a row on rules to govern carbon markets.”
The UN Secretary General António Guterres was all lament. “The international community lost an important opportunity to show increased ambition on mitigation, adaption and finance to tackle the climate crisis.” He hoped that the next year would see “all countries commit to do what science tells us is necessary to reach carbon neutrality in 2050 and no more than 1.5 degree temperature rise.”
The wisdom of COP25 remains similar to that of previous gatherings on climate: politics and environment do not mix well. Big powers and heavy polluters stuck to their stubborn positions, stressing the merits of loose, open markets to solve the problem, notably in terms of reducing carbon emissions; smaller states more concerned by their actual disappearance lobbied European, Latin American and African allies for firmer commitments and pledges.
Australia was also confirmed as one of the chief spoilers, if not outright saboteurs, at the show, noted for its insistence that it be allowed to claim a reduction of its abatement for the 2021-30 Paris Accord. This, went the argument, was due to its own excelling in meeting the 2012-20 Kyoto Protocol period. Previous good conduct could justify current bad and future behaviour. What Canberra offered the globe was an accounting model of deception, exploiting a regulatory loophole in place of lowering emissions. It lacked legal plausibility, given that both Kyoto and Paris are separate treaties.
Former French environment minister Luciana Tubiana was clear about the implications of this idea. “If you want this carryover,” she told the Financial Times, “it is just cheating. Australia was willing in a way to destroy the whole system, because that is the way to destroy the whole Paris agreement.”
Other states were also noted in performing roles of obstruction, including Saudi Arabia, Brazil and the United States. These parties were particular keen to push their differences with other states over Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, a provision dealing with mechanisms and models of trading in emission reductions. Such trade can have a habit of losing validity when put into practice; the issue of transparency remains a considerable problem in such markets.
The US statement at the conference emphasised realism and pragmatism “backed by a record of real world results.” (Real world results tend to exclude environmental ruination for unrepentant polluters.) Market results were primary; environmental matters were subordinate to such dictates. Usual mantras were proffered: innovation and open markets produced wealth, but also “fewer emissions, and mores secure sources of energy.” Despite leaving as a party to the Paris Agreement, “We remain fully committed to working with you, our global partners, to enhance resilience, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and prepare for and respond to natural disasters.”
Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro reconfirmed his climate change scepticism, claiming that the entire issue of COP25 could be put down to commerce. “I don’t know why people don’t understand that it’s just a commercial game.” The Europeans, he suggested, were merely being irksome about cash and meddling. “I’d like to know,” he posed rhetorically to journalists, “has there been a resolution for Europe to be reforested, or are they just going to keep bothering Brazil?”
Brazil’s environment minister Ricardo Salles, known to some as Minister for Deforestation, was similarly keen to place the blame elsewhere. He had demanded, bowl in hand, some $10 billion under the Paris Climate deal to combat deforestation in 2020. All in all, he was not optimistic. “Rich countries did not want to pay up.”
Like Australia, Brazil’s environmental ploy is driven by creative accounting, an attempt to leverage previous supposed good conduct in the climate change stakes, playing accumulated carbon credits from Kyoto to meet those under the Paris arrangements. Using open market rationales, Salles condemned the “protectionist vision” that had taken hold: “Brazil and other countries that could provide carbon credits because of their forests and good environmental practices came out losers.” In an act of some spite, the minister would subsequently post a tweet featuring a photo of a platter heavy with meats. “To compensate for our emissions at COP, a vegetarian lunch!”
Madrid will be remembered for its stalemate on carbon credits and the botched rule book on carbon trading. An effort spearheaded by Costa Rica, including Germany, Britain and New Zealand, to convince states to adopt the San Jose principles, with a prohibition on the use of carbon credit carryover along with other Kyoto gains, was rejected.
COP25 again exposed that degree of prevalent anarchy, if not gangsterism, in global climate change policy. The emphasis, then, is on attempts and arrangements made within regional areas: EU policy on de-carbonised economies (albeit resisted within by such states as Poland), and bilateral arrangements (the EU and China). As these take place, the apocalyptic message led by activists such as Greta Thunberg will become more desperate.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com
The Failure of the Economists
by David Anderson
Economists both in and out of academia continue to operate without ecological planetary conscience, without social conscience. In the profession there is little evidence of desire for change.
Trump Cannot Win
by Dan Lieberman
Republicans also have a dilemma – should they discard their values and need for genuine Republican leadership to support the self-serving present President of the United States (POTUS), who they believe is their preferred candidate to win the next election?
Rape as violent misogyny and `Encounter killing’ as
state lynching
by Sumanta Banerjee
https://countercurrents.org/2019/12/rape-as-violent-misogyny-and-encounter-killing-as-state-lynching
It is ironical that we have been observing December 10 as the World Human Rights day following two most egregious incidents of violation of human rights in India – one by a gang of rapists and the other by the state police, each occurring within a couple of days. In Unnao in Uttar Pradesh, a survivor of gang rape was stabbed and burnt to death by the rapists who had been earlier released on bail by the court. In Hyderabad, the police killed four men accused of raping and murdering a woman, in what is described as `encounter.’
No comments:
Post a Comment