 Hello, everyone. Welcome to another capsule, International Capsule for Shankar IAS Academy. Today, we would like to discuss what is called the COP 27, which is Conference of Parties Number 27. Because I presume that all of you know what it means. This is a conference parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was adopted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. And that was the pinnacle of achievement on the negotiations on climate change. Because before that, it was established that climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions. And these emissions have to be controlled so that global warming does not take place and the global situation changes to the disadvantage of humanity. And it's also established that the greenhouse gases are caused by human activities. There are several things that causes global warming. But human activity is one of the most important factors. This is disputed by some scientists. But now it is fairly established that bringing down greenhouse gas emissions is the only answer. So how to do it has been a matter of discussion since 1972 when the Stockholm Conference on Environment was held, where Mrs. Gandhi laid down some of the very basic principles about climate change. Because the idea suggested in 1972 was that developing countries should keep away from development and not make the same mistakes as the developed countries did in order to save environment. But Mrs. Gandhi put it very bluntly when she said poverty is the worst polluter. And the polluters must pay in the sense that developed countries have a special responsibility. And that debate has been going on till finally it was established that there is common but differentiated responsibility between developed countries and developing countries. This is the only issue which we have been discussing ever since. In several forms the same principle and the question arise. And it happened also in COP 27. Because each time the developed countries make a concession on this aspect. Another issue is raised and therefore it has been going in a direction which does not take us anywhere. The fundamental point is who will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It was agreed in 1992 that the developed countries have a special responsibility and they took on compulsory mandatory reduction. And at the same time they authorised developing countries to increase their greenhouse gas emissions because without that they cannot function. So technology and money should be given to the developing countries so that they can also reduce their emissions without affecting their economic development. So this is the only issue really. But ever since the framework convention the situation has been decreasing going backwards moving away from agreements reached. Meanwhile the temperature rising to intolerable levels. This is the issue. And in 1992 we thought that a solution was found that the mandatory cuts of the developed countries will help and developing countries will be given money and technology so that they don't create emissions themselves beyond their needs. So this was the agreement there. But since the COP 1 in Berlin or which I was Vice Chairman, the situation started to dressing because developed countries moved away from the commitments that they made in Rio de Janeiro. And they started giving various excuses why they cannot reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Because it was a matter of maintaining their luxurious life. And no reduction could be made because they must have their 12 air conditioners and four cars and various other gadgets etc. And they were not willing to make any sacrifice on that account. And the developing countries would not have the projects they want, the electricity they want, the factories they want. Because if environmental standards are established they will not be able to do anything because the financing will not be available for them. The cost of financing an environment friendly industry is much more than a regular industry. And the incremental cost has to be met by somebody and that has to be developed. But this principle they have been moving away from and they have been asking developing countries to do various things. But the whole thing, whole structure of Rio de Janeiro was changed first in Copenhagen and later the Paris Agreement. So I call the Paris Agreement a hoax at that time because there was nothing in the Paris Agreement which would help the process established in Rio de Janeiro. Because developed countries had moved away from implementing their mandatory cuts and developing countries were not given any money. It was supposed to be $350 billion which was promised in Rio de Janeiro which was reduced to $5 billion for 10 years in the World Bank. So it was a ridiculous situation. So finally all the countries had agreed that this a formula of mandatory cuts will not work because they did not implement them and their argument was the developing countries must also have mandatory cuts which the developing countries could not afford. And finally among about five or six leading countries it was agreed that we changed the track. The track went up to what is called the Kyoto Protocol and the Kyoto Protocol was embodied all the elements of the Rio Declaration but the developed countries refused to sign it and so it died a natural death. So an alternative was thought of and that is how came the concept of voluntary cuts. That means everybody cuts voluntarily with a view to make sure that the global temperature does not go about 1.5 degrees Celsius. That was the heart of the Paris Agreement. So everybody gave their voluntary emission cuts and when it was all added up it was discovered that the temperature of the globe will go by 3.5 degrees Celsius not 1.5 which is the desirable level. So that means if you are above 1.5 degrees Celsius then the world will begin to end because the lower level countries will disappear, more floods and more drought and everything will come and maybe 200 years the earths will perhaps be unlivable. So what do you do about that? And so from Paris up to Glasgow last year these ideas were tried out so many safety valves were proposed, so many funding methodologies were proposed but nothing came to the solution which will limit the global climate change or global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. So we have already issued the death warrant for the earth by not fulfilling those promises. So the United States walked out of the Paris Agreement, all others tried to stay and then the US government came back but all that did not make any difference to the actual situation on the ground. And so the world body, the United Nations body is concerned again changed track in Glasgow. In Glasgow the change of track was that every country will declare a target year for carbon free emissions, net carbon emissions in the sense that you can emit carbon but you must do things in order to neutralize it through other methods by using other fuels and other technology. So many countries have declared their intention to be carbon free by 2030, 2050, 2060 and India 2070 but all these countries at that time all the developing countries said yes these are our targets but this is subject to financial support and also subject to technological support and that is where it stayed. So people were thinking of implementing the understanding in Glasgow and that is why the 27th COP is brief the history of the 27th COP to see how they can develop policies which would fulfill the voluntary years that countries have declared. India for example said we must have 1 trillion dollars a year if we were to reach that stage by 2070 so nobody believes that that kind of money will be available. So the usual things happen a lot of expectations people are promising very many things a lot of NGOs and others were on the streets in fact there are more NGOs and activists on the streets than in the conference hall the enthusiasm was also more outside than in the conference because the conference was dealing with the reality. So there was a concept of loss and damage for the most affected countries this has been in the air for some time but that is not what the developing countries were seeking the kind of technology and funding which would enable them to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and reach the zero carbon level but the developed countries some of them just started this debate on a fund in order to deal with the loss and damages caused by some other countries. So this is then is removed this moved away from the original understanding the idea was all developing countries must get assistance but now they are making another category within that within that the weaker countries countries with no hope of development unless they have assistance unless they are able to have factories and other facilities and therefore they needed to not only create new greenhouse gas emissions at the same time protect themselves there are various ways of doing it you can build bridges you can build dams in order to you know control the climatic conditions and also keep away from the dangers of land or drought etc but this is happening all the time we look at the period before COP 27 this happened in many many countries. So here again I think the developed countries played a trick on the world community so instead of promising funding for everyone they started talking about loss and damage of course there was nothing wrong in that idea that we should certainly compensate the poorer countries to gain sustain and sustenance but the bigger issue is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally and this loss and damage funding which is proposed is not going to deal with it so that is why I have said in my article in agridiff.com last week that COP has done nothing in order to improve the situation on climate change and more scientific experts are saying that this was totally a loss of time but there are always people who like to see the silver lining on any dark cloud and the only silver lining is that there is a promise of a new fund so this and the committee has been established to look into the formalities to find out where the money will come from how it will be distributed which are the countries which are affected most and all these have been initiated who will give them technology who will give them money all these have to be discussed. So what has happened is only so far that this idea has been accepted and that too was accepted at the very last minute and this is something that who a COP does all the time when the time for the conference to end comes normally there is no outcome and then they turn the clock back but they cannot come in they cannot postpone the conference so what they do is they don't change the dates they change on to the clock and even though two nights may be spent it should all be on the day the clock was stopped so that there is no the time lag does not affect the programs etc. So the same thing has been done like it happened in Glasgow there was this issue of coal how to face out coal and finally after several hours of discussion phase out became phase down and that was a compromise that India suggested and everybody declared victory and then nothing happened what has happened to coal nothing at all. So a similar situation has arisen here also the Secretary General said that this was the first step towards climate justice because those who are suffered the most are being compensated many people said this is a determined way forward it will go the same way but in my view it will go the same way the other funds there are so many funds proposed planet protection fund the green fund so many funds were proposed but no funds have come no technology have come there is more of hot air than anything else. So if those people who consider to your COP 27 a success will highlight the fact that there is a provision for a new funding it depends on us what to do with it how to raise it before COP 28 that's what they are saying but those who know the story from right from the beginning understands that this is another ploy another way to produce an atmosphere of progress but without any real progress because nobody has committed any money nobody has given any timetable just say there's a fund and for that fund they have established some kind of a committee which will decide all this and come back with suggestions before the COP 2028 next year so there is going to be a transitional committee so in my view this is a retrogressive step because now the funding for the developing countries will be further divided for those who have been damaged or lost sustained losses and others who may not have immediately sustained any loss but also in a way in a way looking towards the opportunity to resolve the problem so right from 92 till today there is no viable program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions nor do we have a credible program to give funding and technology to developing countries these are the issues but these issues have not been addressed and addressed in a peculiar way by saying that as far as reduction of greenhouse gases is concerned we go by the years established by different countries and we know very well that they are not going to implement it and therefore let us address the other issue loss and damage so a lot of you know questions were asked and developed countries kept promising and developing countries kept questioning and finally at the last minute to after the day of the end of the conference had passed this decision was taken and I think that this also will go the same way as the many other funds are concerned because the idea that developed countries should change their lifestyles and they enable developed countries to develop with the resources that they make available so that the poverty which is the worst polluter is remote and those who have polluted the earth that is the developed countries must pay for it a principle that is accepted in 1992 so in so many years of discussions and debates we still have not find a solution and unless there is a change of heart in the developed countries to change their lifestyles and to adapt new lifestyles and new technology so that they don't consume all the resources that the earth has in order to enrich themselves so it's a it's a major major issue and COP 27 has not sold the decision it has diverted attention from the main issue of climate change climate change reduction and also funding and technology by creating a new fund which does not even exist as of now so this is what has happened with COP 27 lots of speeches were made President Biden himself spoke about the need for climate change control everybody developed countries and developing countries spoke very emotionally effectively and the young people you know people who are committed to the cause of climate change they asked the present generation are you forgetting us are you going to forget us you will pass away and we are the people who will have to suffer the losses caused by climate change and so they keep saying this generation is making a very grave mistake not doing anything about it because they are passing on the responsibility to the next generation and generation after next which will be gravely affected by all these problems so the present conferences the present governments have to act and that is a demand and from our outside I have seen personally in the Berlin where the NGOs you know got into the conference here and they announced and their results were announced they invaded the conference hall and threatened delegates that they will do something in order to push them to take decisions and finally it was great difficulty that all of us appeal to them not to disrupt the conference so the the the anger is burning outside and that is being expressed by the young people so this kind of idea of a fund or some some kind of a ploy is not going to change the opinion of the people and as developed countries are concerned they are emitting greenhouse gases to maintain their luxury and they would like to stick to that they are not going to change that so you cannot expect any outcome there and the developing countries have to stop development in order to survive because they do not have funds to use it for environment friendly technology so no money is available there and that costs of even giving some support to the most affected countries the estimate of the united nations environment program is as much as 580 billion dollars by 2050 immediately 160 to 340 billion dollars every year in order to pay for the loss and damage of the poorer countries so where is it going to come it's not going to come at all so we have to look for another formula another solution for COP 29 because COP 28 will review this and discover that this has been not right here so particularly to the young people we did not know what to say because the present generation of deal makers decision makers have to take the pull by the horns and reduce emissions by changing lifestyles and reduce emissions in developing countries by adopting new technologies for which they need so it always comes down to the dollar finally and that has to be found and that can be done only by sacrifice by the development countries which they will not do because they need their luxury emissions and developing countries cannot stop all their development activities because what they have is survival emissions so this conflict cannot be a result and the only hope in my opinion the only hope is that we develop technologies sufficiently in order to capture the carbon from the atmosphere and do something with it such research is going on in many countries but it's not reached any conclusion if you have a technology by which something some bomb-like thing will go into the atmosphere get this collected in some way in a liquid form of solid form and bring back to the earth and maybe bury it somewhere or turn them into useful products and that's not very far maybe five years, ten years like in the case of nuclear energy the fusion energy is very much in the making but after many years we have not reached anywhere near the conclusion of that so similarly a scientific exercise will probably be the final solution but in the meantime the politicians have a job the diplomats have a job so we'll go on creating new institutions, new products, new kind of quality of life the same different kind of responsibilities all these will work out but I think eventually since luxury has to be maintained and survival has to be ensured I do not see an easy formula to develop unless there is a scientific solution thank you