 Hello and welcome to NewsClick and People's Dispatch. On the 20th of September, hundreds and thousands of people took to the streets across the world and on social media as part of the global climate strike. To talk more about this, we have with us Tejal Kanitkar of the Energy Environment Program of the National Institute of Advanced Studies in Bangalore, India. Thank you for joining us, Tejal. Thank you for having me. Yeah, so Tejal, we saw, like I said, innumerable people taking to the streets yesterday and it's been a long time since so many people have gathered on a common issue across the world and there's been a lot of celebration of this fact. So what is your primary initial take on this? And it is seen as a sign of hope. At the same time, there are certain aspects which you earlier have also pointed out. We need to be cautious on this matter, so could you just talk about that? Yeah, well, there has been a lot of sanitation like that strike has, on such an issue, has managed to mobilize so many people, especially so many young people. When there isn't major conference parties that is happening and you have the front page covering climate change, without the President of the United States making some bizarre tweets on the issue. So I suppose that's something that people are talking about it. But I think we need to understand what their demands are. And who has been protecting against it, to come out from the streets on climate change. And one major thing is one of the major universal demands seems to be climate action now. And this is largely really focused on climate change mitigation. So the adaptation, loss and damage, all of the other things that are part of the inter-governmental negotiations on climate change are not really part of the narrative of this movement. It's really focused on climate action and the climate change mitigation. What does this mean? This means moving to renewable energy, reducing emissions essentially, by moving to greener technologies and maybe also restoring forests and increasing forest cover. Really, which is considered now across the board, especially, that is what emerges from these narratives, these are no brainer. So why is it so difficult to achieve this and who is it that is responsible for not doing these transitions? And in the global north, there are protests against their own governments who are quite rightly dragging their feet on climate action. So in a global call like this is made and everybody from the developed as well and the developing countries, from poorer nations that have also come out on the streets, this is this larger understanding that there has to be a shift in the way in which we produce energy, in the way in which we use our resources, so that climate change, which is an urgent problem, is checked. However, the issue is not so straightforward. If things are so clear and that we can, there is technology available now and so everybody should use renewable energy, there seems to be the refrain. Why is this not happening? Are the issues that have stalled action not stalled? I mean, I'm not saying that these are the only issues that have stalled action, but the more complicated aspects of the problem have they been resolved? So is that, should climate action be taken everywhere simultaneously in the same manner? And it changes the global progress that requires a global solution. One country doing something for climate change is not going to solve the problem. Or one community doing something for climate change is not going to solve the problem. So should everybody be participating in it? But the entire, the crux of the negotiations, right from 1992 from the Rio conference, have been that those who are responsible for climate change so far, those who are responsible for all the emissions in the past should take a lead. Also first, they have higher capability of addressing the problem. That's compared to developing countries who have a lot of challenges in terms of them. And while nobody's arguing that we should not be doing things in a manner that also is environmentally sensible, we do have multiple challenges which are far bigger than those years by developed countries. But this sort of differentiation amongst the developed countries and developing countries, rich countries, poorer countries, or even the rich and the poor in general seems to be completely missing from a narrative of this particular movement. The only differentiation that does exist is the one between older people and younger people. So the aspect of intergenerational equity. Equity between generations is highlighted as being violated in the way in which we are doing things. But one major aspect of equity which is intergenerational equity which is within populations today is really completely missed. Even when we talk about renewable energy and a transition to renewable energy, who is going to pay for this? Has that question become irrelevant? It has not. And that's one of the major aspects of the problem which I think is not addressed at all. So what you're saying also is that while this movement sort of highlights the universality of the issue, it one does not go into the specifics and you already mentioned equity. And equity is one issue that it does not seriously seek to examine in any way at all. Yes, not at all. I mean, one, so like I spoke about renewable energy and the transition is putting all green technology in the public domain. Even an aspect of the demands of the pretend. Right. This is not. If you look at environmental movements for backing it or even big capital that is backing some of these movements, these are not going to be demands that are on their agenda at all. And those who are protesting here in India also seem to have forgotten that this is something that we should be asking for. Right. So give us a state of the climate change negotiations. Now, everything from loans to developing countries to equity flows, investments, FDI, everything seems to be climate funding. Right. And you pay high amounts of money for green technology to the developed countries. To save the planet from problems that they are more responsible for. Right. And this is really something that is completely not at all a part of the rhetoric, the narrative, the slogans. And any kind of politics that is problematic to the ruling elite is really out of the slogans and the narrative of the climate debate. You know, one wonders why from the right to the left everybody seems to be looking now fondly at these children who are coming out on the streets and protesting and using methods of protest that are otherwise not very nice. I mean, a strike done by transportation workers inconvenienced with taxpayers. Right. A strike by university teachers inconvenienced students. Right. A strike by students, you know, even for basic facilities, let's say, looked at as spoiled grass using public money, if not anti-national. Right. And yet, sir, you have the same mode of protest that is being used and it is, everybody seems to be applauding it. Right. One has to wonder if that is because it is devoid of any radical content. Right. But simply using radical methods of protest doesn't make the movement itself radical. Right. There has to be some radical content to the demand of the movement as well as to the slogans that they thank you. Right. And this kind of a movement, as it is now, is really asking no hard questions to those who are responsible for climate change. So in some senses, it's maybe like a peace movement which refuses to talk about the economics of war or the military industrial complex or imperialism even and just talks about human behavior, so to speak. Absolutely. Right. But how would you, for instance, envision an alternative movement or, say, a struggle in such a scenario? Like, what would actually be the contours of global solidarity in a situation like this? A global solidarity has to be of, and I think it is necessary. I'm not saying at all that a global solidarity on climate change is not necessary. And there are efforts that have been made in this to reach out across the borders, to talk about equity, not just equity between the generation, but equity between nations, equity between the working masses of the world in some sense, and look at who is affected. Right. And how is it that the communities that are vulnerable to climate change? Like, smaller middle peasants, for example, in India, they have to, they're dealing with lack of formal credit, they're dealing with high-input costs, they're dealing with, you know, the hot prices, and on top of that, they have to deal with increasing weather-vaneability. Right. Families who have lost their homes to increasing the extreme events across the world. Who pays, who compensates? How do you protect one? How do you compensate them for their loss today? And how is it that you take care of the fact that they are protected from these things in the future? And how do we raise funds for this? Who pays for it? Right. That is one. And how is it that we mitigate climate change going forward into the future? So when you protect here in India for climate action, and when you protect outside the White House for climate action, this aspect of who is it that should be paying for this, how we should be going about it, and whether or not in the kind of economic system that we are demanding these changes, this kind of a transition is possible. And so therefore, should our programs also include the fact that you cannot depend on a climate solution that is essentially based on the appeasement of the global elite. Right. So, you know, you basically expect them to invest in climate change. Why? Because, and how do you expect them to invest in climate change? By making incentives, giving them incentives. Right. Which means, you know, you appease their need to look for profit in terms of climate. And then we, you know, pay them money so that they can invest in technologies that can save the planet. Right. I mean, this is a really, because we look at them perverse way of doing this. So unless we bring politics back into this, and for politics that really is about putting the burden on climate change on those who are more responsible and more capable than those who should be taking action on climate change, we have to bring this back into the narrative of the climate search, right? And then let's call for the global solidarity on that table. Right. It cannot be simply on the basis of everybody has to do everything everywhere. So while the United States moves from coal to gas, Afghanistan has to stop producing electricity from coal. I mean, that cannot be the basis of global solidarity on climate change. Right. Thank you so much, Rajesh. Thank you. That's all we have time for today. Keep watching, news click, and people's dispatch.