Amartya Sen at the Aspen Institute India’s Conference in New Delhi – WSJ.com
India’s approach should have been to push for what it considered to be a “fairer, juster deal” on climate change that all parties can agree to — and if that means mandatory cuts, then so be it. “To say under no circumstances will we accept mandatory restraints is ridiculous,” he said. “Our position should be we will accept a just agreement, an agreement that creates a better world.” He said he was particularly disturbed at one point during the Copenhagen deliberations to see African and other developing nations side with China on the ramifications of an increase in global temperatures and to see India on the side of the U.S. and western Europe when “we have been traditionally the spokesman of the underdog.” (via Snapshots from the Aspen Institute India’s Conference in New Delhi – WSJ.com).
Inside Indian bedrooms
60years ago, an assault was made by foreign ‘observers’ into Indian bedrooms. Foreign ‘observers’
- Tied ‘development aid’ to India’s population control.
- Trained Indian ‘health workers’ to control India’s human reproductive behaviour.
- Paid for by Western Governments, soon after that, we had ‘health workers’ fanning out across the Indian country-side, conducting vasectomies /tubectomies on India’s (especially poor) population.
It did not matter then, who the ‘observers’ were – foreign or Indian. Neither does it matter now. What matters is someone’s monitoring. And I don’t like that at all. Even if it done by a Brown.
Mirror, Mirror on the wall
Who is the most dubious of them all? And Carbon emissions is a very dubious subject. Sometime back, cows (read that as India) were targetted for carbon and methane emission. Will it be Indians and human beings next? Rhetorical you think?
Australia proves how this logic works. For Australians this has become a habit. They decided recently, in Australia to kill thirsty camels. Some time back, they were killing cane toads. Before that it was kangaroos. Before that it was dingos. And before that were humans.
Like last time
This time around, based on similarly dubious research, India is being pressured to accept monitoring of climate change. Climate control and the Copenhagen meet is that fast growing octopus which is spreading out. It tentacles can be found in all kinds of places. One of its tentacles has reached India – which was any way the target. The Aspen Institute, India (AII).
To ‘soften’ up India, the AII organized a gab-fest. Who could be a good candidate for a gathering of such worthies? At least, Nobel Prize winners. Rajendra Pachauri? Al Gore? Any better candidates. Yes.
Amartya Sen – who ‘graced’ this gab-fest, hosted by Aspen Institute, India (AII) – an ‘associate’ of Aspen Institute, USA. Amartya Sen is tenderizing up the media, the academia, to accept Copenhagen outcome – which is primarily International ‘monitoring’ of India’s climate control and administration. Does Amartya Sen raise any of these questions? For his efforts to weaken Indian position and interests, Amartya Sen will soon qualify as a unique category of Indian passport holder – Non-Resident, Non-Indian, holding an Indian passport.
The AII-Board of Trustees reads more like Who’s Who of Indian industry – Bajaj, Birla, Godrej, Thapar et al.
The carbon credits ‘opportunity’
The rich fat-cats are already licking the chops. Estimates have been put out that the ‘carbon-credits business s worth Rs.28,000 crores.
Interestingly, note one thing very carefully. No one, but none, is talking up about cleaning up on pollution. No industry is being asked to reduce their pollutants (think of inks, dyes and chemicals), manage by-products (sulphur from petroleum refining), eliminate contamination (paper plants), decrease waste (electronics), recycle (just imagine the number of mobile phone batteries).
Dada Amartya, you got a memory lapse! How come you don’t talk about any of this?
Polluter cleans – not pay
One of the fundamental flaws of the Kyoto Protocol was the principal of ‘polluter pays’. Based on retributive justice logic, it was something that was bound to fail. Instead it should have been based on the Indic justice principle – ameliorative and make good. The operating principle should have been ‘polluter cleans and does not pollute again.’
Camels … in the kingdom of heaven
Copenhagen is for the rich (from poor countries), by the rich (from rich countries) to the rich (from poor and rich countries) – and may the poor and common be damned. And one thing you can be absolutely, completely, definitely, positively, wholly sure of.
The poor will never, ever, at all, in any manner, benefit from climate control.