10th December 2009

Prabir Purkayastha

The Copenhagen Conference starts today, with a stark choice facing the world. We either cut global carbon emissions soon, going to near zero by the end of the century or we are on a slippery slope to climate disaster. Even worse, the data shows that we are exceeding the worst-case scenario of the 2006 IPCC Report. A group of scientists have collated the last three year figures on Arctic and Antarctic ice melts, the sea-rise over the last few years and the temperature rise. All of these indicate that things are getting worse for us and time is fast running out on taking immediate and drastic action.

The rich and industrialised counties, who today have about three fourths of the stock of carbon emissions in the atmosphere are dragging their feet on the steps to be taken. The US is now talking about a 17% cut by 2020 using 2005 as the base year and that too as a national commitment and not an internationally binding target. The other industrialised countries have now fallen in line with the US and are committing far less than what the world requires. If we total up all their commitments, the target would be around 11 to 18% and far below the deep 40% cuts required by 2020. The logic of this is quite simple. The slower and later the industrialised countries cut their emissions, the less the carbon space for the developing countries. They will either have to sacrifice future development itself or choose a much more expensive low-carbon trajectory of development, while the rich countries continue with their profligate carbon emissions and grabbing even more carbon space.

The reality of global warming is that time is running out on us. If we adopt the path of predatory capitalism – how much carbon space can we grab from others – the path the rich countries are following, the future is bleak. Already, a group of scientists have marshalled data that shows that we are now outside the worst-case scenario of the IPCC on all counts. The loss of ice from the polar ice caps and the rise in sea level is occurring faster than IPCC had predicted. The carbon emissions are also rising faster than IPCC's worst-case predictions. “Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. The area of summertime sea-ice during 2007-2009 was about 40% less than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.”

With failure of leadership from the rich industrialised countries, it is the developing world that is showing leadership. The African countries made clear in the penultimate round of discussions before Copenhagen that the rich countries needed to put numbers on the table without which no other discussion would proceed. China, Brazil, Indonesia and now India have all made unilateral commitments for reducing carbon intensity of their GDP and lowering of growth rate of emissions. All this has made clear that it is the club of the rich, who are holding up meaningful climate action.

The basic issues before Copenhagen are how to share the remaining carbon space and who will bear the cost of the low-carbon trajectory that the developing countries will have to follow in the future. On both these counts, the rich countries have a multi-pronged attack on the developing countries. The first attack is to do away with the Kyoto Protocol and talk about a new treaty. The Kyoto Protocol had made clear the difference between rich countries who have caused the problem with their high emissions and the developing countries that will now have to bear the burden due to to the carbon stock of the rich countries. The talk of a new protocol is to do away with this vital distinction. This will also allow the rich countries to shift the base year from 1990 to 2005, therefore considerably reducing the cuts they would otherwise have to make. By 1990 levels, the US's current offer (17% over 2005 by 2020) is virtually a zero cut. The second attempt is to put all countries in a common basket and do way with the distinction between Annex 1 countries, who with 20% population have 75% the current stock of carbon in the atmosphere and the others who with 80% of the world's population, have only 25% of carbon stock. The last attack is to virtually do away with financial and technology transfers. The promise that the US and the EU are making is around $ 5-10 billion per annum against a minimum requirement of $100-300 billion. Technology transfers and access, built into the Kyoto Protocol is not even on offer in Copenhagen. This, in the view of the rich countries, must follow the market principles. The god of market must prevail, even if it means destruction of the world.

There are now two contending drafts that will be circulated in Copenhagen – one is the Danish draft, which has the support of the club of the rich. The second is the BASIC draft – the one hammered out by China, South Africa, Brazil and India. The developing countries, some of who have been allowed to peek into the Danish draft, have already said that it is unacceptable as it is a complete departure from Kyoto.
We will be able to comment further when we see both the drafts. At present, we will know the main contours of the BASIC draft, which roughly takes forward the Kyoto agenda.

While the Indian position publicly remains congruent to the BASIC position to which it is party, the Minister's of Environment, Jairam Ramesh's statement, first in Parliament and later in an interview with Times of India, has created a lot of confusion. It is now public that the two of the negotiators postponed their departure to Copenhagen seeking “clarifications” from the Minister. Though sources close to the Minister tried to portray this as a difference on India's unilateral offer on carbon intensity, as C. Dasgupta's press statement made clear, it was on more substantive issues.

The issues are Jairam Ramesh's virtual trashing of the per capita basis of India's negotiating position. This goes even against the PM's assurance in Hiliegendamm that India's per capita emissions will not exceed that of the rich countries. The second is watering down the distinction between Annex 1 and non Annex 1 countries. The last is moving away from the Kyoto Protocol's basic formulation that the actions of developing countries are linked to financial and technology transfers from the developed countries. Instead, the Minister talked about technology development and ran down technology transfers and technology access.

These are not matter of flexibility or nuances as the Minister would have us believe but fundamental to India's future. This kind of repeated shifts in position has created a doubt in the developing countries about India's intentions in Copenhagen. All the goodwill India earned in its championing the developing countries cause right from Kyoto, is being lost with the Minister's cavalier dismissal of India's stated positions on climate change.
We will have to watch carefully what happens in Copenhagen and what the Indian delegation does there. The future of the world and the future development of the poorer countries are at stake. Only a vigilant people can force its leaders to do the right thing in Copenhagen. In addition, in India, we have the additional task of seeing India does not break ranks with the developing countries. The next 10 days are crucial for all of us and our future.

December 06, 2009

Amit Sengupta


(25 years have passed since the worst industrial disaster in history, on 3 December, 1989 in Bhopal. Little has changed since then, and many more Bhopals are waiting to happen. The All India Peoples Science Network and the Centre of Indian Trade Unions, in association with the Bhopal Gas Peedit Sangharsh Sahyog Samiti, initiated a nationwide campaign that culminated in a national seminar in Bhopal on 1-2 December, designed to draw lessons related to location of hazardous industries, the predatory practices of MNCs and the necessity of addressing the needs of the gas affected victims in Bhopal. The seminar was addressed, among others, by S P Shukla, Dipankar Mukherjee, Afaq Ahmad, Amit Sengupta, Sadhana Karnik, Prabir Purkayastha, Sunit Chopra, Badal Saroj, Pramod Pradhan, D Raghunandan, Vikas Rawal, Asha Mishra, Vinod Raina, Ardhendu Dakshi, B Guha Thakurta, A T Padmanabhan, Biplab Ghosh,  Debanjan Chakrabarty, Abdul Jabbar, Rajesh Joshi, N Venugopal, Ajay Khare and N D Jaiprakash. We reproduce below a background and description of the Bhopal Gas Disaster, discussions on which were reflected in the national seminar.)

ON the night of 2-3 December 1984, a lethal cloud of gas (later found to be largely composed of the extremely toxic gas called Methyl IsoCyanate: MIC) escaped from the pesticide plant of Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) in Bhopal and enveloped the surrounding densely populated localities where the poorer sections of people reside. As a result, more than 500,000 people suffered varying degrees of injuries, of which over the years an estimated 20,000 victims have died in the last 25 years. Subsequent investigations by governmental and non-governmental agencies clearly established that it was criminal negligence of Union Carbide management that resulted in the release of the poisonous gases. This US multinational (which has since been taken over by Dow Chemical Company, another MNC behemoth) had knowingly flouted all safety norms to cut costs at its Bhopal plant while maintaining much better safety standards at its main pesticide plant in the US, thus revealing its complete disregard for the lives of Indians.

Unjust & Arbitrary Settlement

The tale of this shocking mass killing does not end here. Redress and compensation was sought from UCC through legal means, which it evaded and blocked for years until matters were taken up in the Supreme Court of India. Even as investigations to assess the true extent of damage to lives and environment were dragging on, the Supreme Court, much to the satisfaction of UCC, brokered a settlement between the government of India and UCC in 1989. Under the terms of the settlement, UCC promised to pay 470 million US Dollars (about Rs 705 crores at the then rate of exchange) as compensation, while the government of India agreed to withdraw the criminal cases instituted against the company and its officials for causing the disaster. Compensation was to be paid for arbitrarily estimated 3000 fatalities and over one lakh injured.

The amounts of compensation fixed by the Supreme Court for various categories (Rs 1-3 lakhs for deaths, Rs 0.5 - 2 lakhs for permanent disability, Rs 50,000 for grievious injuries) were a pittance. Compare this, for instance, to the Uphaar fire tragedy in Delhi where 59 persons were killed due to asphyxiation after a fire in a cinema hall in 1997.The Delhi High Court awarded Rs 15 lakhs and Rs 18 lakhs each to next of kin of respectively minor and major victims, along with 9 per cent interest starting from the day of the tragedy.

The sum of 470 million dollars was very close to the 450 million insurance that Carbide carried, meaning that Carbide had to pay only 20 million beyond what the insurance companies paid out, making it one of the cheapest damages settlement ever for any major chemical accident. Evidence suggests that the hasty settlement was also designed to pre-empt the criminal prosecution of Union Carbide officials and the further progress of investigation by the CBI into the real causes of the corporate crime.

Continuing Misery

Over 25 years have passed since this arbitrary and unjust settlement was imposed on the victims. Thousands of victims still continue to suffer from serious ailments and disabilities directly attributable to the gases; on an average about 6000 victims continue to visit medical facilities every day. A whole generation of people debilitated by the toxic gases struggled through these years bringing up children who suffered from its harmful effects, fighting declining physical capacities to earn their living, and awaiting justice. In the latter half of the 1990s, persistent investigations revealed that UCIL had been poisoning the surrounding areas by freely dumping toxic waste produced in the routine operation of the pesticide plant since 1969. Ground water contamination and other continuing environmental damages are yet to be properly assessed.

Not only have the victims of the Corporate crime been denied due material compensation, they have also been denied proper medical care, rehabilitation and other forms of support. No treatment guidelines were formulated and treatment facilities continue to be far too inadequate. The ICMR wound up its studies on the long term health effects of the poisonous gas barely ten years after the disaster.

Successive governments (at the state or central levels) have exhibited callous disregard to the conditions in Bhopal while dealing with the real extent of the disaster that struck Bhopal. On the other hand they have bent over backwards to accommodate and appease the killer company in diverse ways. Prosecution of the companies and its top officials was relaunched in 1993 after being quashed under the settlement. Criminal charges against the accused have been reduced from culpable homicide not amounting to murder to causing death by rash and negligent act. It was only in 2004 that the government of India finally requested extradition of Warren Anderson, chairman of UCC in 1984, after he failed to appear in court for twentyfive years. UCC, a proclaimed offender in India, set up a Trust in London and was allowed to take away Rs 11.7 crores for 'administrative expenses', including daily personal charges of the chairman which were more than the compensation for death in 1984. The erstwhile NDA government even listed Keshub Mahindra, one of the accused, for being awarded the Padma Bhushan - fortunately the ensuing public outrage prevented this. The Bhopal settlement and later legal shenanigans clearly reveal the collusion of successive governments with multinational corporate interests.

Predatory Drive For Profits

Although twentyfive years have gone by, the Bhopal Gas Disaster is still a live issue not only for the thousands of residents of Bhopal but also for all those concerned about these issues. The transfer of obsolete, faulty and hazardous technology and gross violation of safety standards by UCC and its subsequent attempts to evade responsibility clearly show the contempt in which such MNCs hold the people, especially of third world countries like India. In the current era of imperialist globalisation, this predatory drive for profits at any cost by international capital needs to be highlighted. It is the same drive that makes poor people work for a pittance in countries round the world, so that super-profits can be expropriated by corporate behemoths. It is the same drive that intervenes economically, diplomatically and even militarily in country after country to expand and perpetuate harsh and unjust exploitation. And ultimately, it is the same drive that caused Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan, unleashed Agent Orange on the Vietnamese people, and has caused unimaginable hardship and misery for the people of Iraq and elsewhere.

The compromises and vacillation of the government of India, the state government and various arms of the State machinery, in connection with the Bhopal disaster, reveals their disregard towards the well-being and lives of people, and connivance with international capital in all its manifestations and actions. This tendency has grown considerably in the past twentyfive years, and in the current ethos of FDI worship, it has acquired almost an institutional status.

The lessons of Bhopal are being disregarded once again in the case of new nuclear plants. The government is contemplating capping of liability, in the case of accidents, for all nuclear plant operators and suppliers. Clearly, this is in response to demands by US based suppliers and the US government that they should be freed of any liability (or have only token liability) in the case of an accident in the nuclear plant. Interestingly, this has not been demanded by either the Russian or the French suppliers. If an accident in a nuclear plant happens, it could be of an even larger magnitude than the Bhopal disaster. Yet, there is no attempt to ensure that the safety of the plant and the quality of the supplies is ensured. The amount of liability is sought to be capped at $450 million, i.e. very close to the figure for the Bhopal disaster. The attempt is to make the compensation package in Bhopal the “model” for liability in all nuclear plants.

Bhopal also brought forth the important issues relating to location of industries, especially hazardous ones, the need for a strict mechanism for environmental impact assessment and disclosure of technological details, strengthening laws and regulations relating to use of hazardous material and liabilities arising thereof. Special attention needs to be paid towards evolving a regulatory framework for MNCs and their activities on Indian soil.

The people of Bhopal have fought for two and a half decades for justice and managed to get only paltry concessions. However, several life and death issues still remain unaddressed even as they continue to struggle through legal and other avenues. Their struggle has been consistently supported by democratic forces all over the country (as also internationally). But this struggle of solidarity needs to be vastly strengthened in order to, both, ensure that justice is done for Bhopal as well as to raise the level of vigilance against ideologies and economic systems that caused Bhopal twentyfive years ago and continue to flourish even today.

Securing Justice For Bhopal

So, what can be done now for securing justice to the people of Bhopal, and ensuring that such a disaster does not strike elsewhere? Some of the crucial demands are:

For the People of Bhopal

Rehabilitation: Develop a comprehensive strategy for assuring suitable employment to families of victims, including training, credit for working capital etc.

Medical care: A broad framework of treatment for gas effects and toxic contamination should be evolved and prescribed, under a unified delivery system. All research findings including ICMR studies should be made public. ICMR should forthwith restart all medical research pertaining to effects of the toxic gases on life systems.

Clean up: Government of India should take over the task of cleaning up the former UCIL plant site in a transparent manner, involving suitable experts and specialists.

Public Distribution System: Special ration cards should be issued for victims and all essential commodities should be made available at controlled prices through suitably located fair price shops in Bhopal.

Fast-track special court for criminal cases: A dedicated special court should be set up for speedy trial of the criminal cases in order that the guilty are brought to justice forthwith. The extradition of Anderson and other accused from the US should be vigorously pursued and diplomatic pressure exercised on the US through bilateral and multilateral fora for forcing the US to comply to the demand.

Right to Information: All previous and on-going research/investigative reports should be made public and a transparent system be established for future.

Settlement & Compensation: The central government must  reopen the Bhopal Settlement and undertake the necessary legal measures towards that end. It should demand additional compensation from UCC/Dow for disbursement among victims after re-categorisation, inclusion of second generation victims and fresh fixation of amounts.

To protect the Rights of People in General

Location of hazardous industries should be subject to a principled policy, applicable all over the country, with which local zoning laws need to be in consonance. Such policy should prohibit location of categorised industries in inhabited areas, lay down mandatory measures for safety as also containment, and place the onus on the industry. Monitoring mechanism, through tripartite statutory bodies, measures for workers safety, compensation etc. should also be included in this. Well-defined penalty provisions and the principle of "polluter pays" should be clearly and legally established. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), with complete transparency and participation of local people in hearings, needs to be made mandatory in such cases.

All technology transfer cases from foreign countries should be subject to stringent screening by expert committees, with workers representatives. Complete disclosure of technical details including raw materials, processes, potential hazards, methods of prevention and containment should be mandatory.

Laws relating to industrial safety and occupational health should be strengthened in the light of Bhopal and general development of industrial technologies. These include labour laws as well as environmental statutes.

12th November 2009
D. Raghunandan


The last international Meeting of all country-parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) before the fateful Copenhagen Conference due in December took place in Barcelona, Spain over the past week. The Barcelona Meet followed the Bangkok Meeting last month and both these global gatherings involving over 10,000 governmental delegates, UN officials, NGOs, observers, press and others were expected to discuss various details which would then be tied up in Copenhagen. The 15th Conference of Parties (or COP-15 in the parlance) in the Danish capital is slated to finalize global arrangements and responsibilities of different categories of Parties, notably developed and developing countries. Contrary to much casual commentary and press reporting, as well as deliberate misrepresentation by some developed country interlocutors, the negotiations are for the second commitment period of the Climate Treaty --- better known as the Kyoto Protocol --- beyond 2012 when the first commitment period comes to an end, not for a new or successor Treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

Given the depths of the climate crisis, and the near inevitability of irreversible climate change if drastic action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is not taken soon, one would have expected a sense of urgency and determination. The December 2009 deadline was set as far back as COP-13 in Bali, Indonesia, in December 2007 when a Bali Action Plan was also drawn up comprising an outline of actions required at Copenhagen and a roadmap for arriving at a global consensus in the form of Treaty terms and obligations. Yet every Meeting since Bali and every passing month has taken us further away from the desired outcomes. And it is now almost certain that the Copenhagen Conference will produce only empty if high-sounding rhetoric, statements of pious intentions, vague promises, and a decision to take decisions through further negotiations later. And even all these will mask a deeper, fundamental change in the currently agreed global UNFCCC-Kyoto architecture.  

Those following the international negotiations closely, including this columnist, had been predicting this trend and likely outcome in Copenhagen which was becoming increasingly evident from the positions being taken by the US faithfully followed by its close allies. Ignoring minor differences in tone and detail, the prime reason for the collapse has been the adamant refusal of the developed countries to accept the deep binding emissions cuts demanded by the science and affirmed in the Bali Action Plan, as well as their persistent efforts to re-do the very foundation of the Climate Treaty and transfer a substantial burden of the responsibility onto the shoulders of developing countries.

Abandoning Kyoto        The Bangkok Meeting saw what was till then a sub-text coming out in the open. Australia, whose new Labour government gained kudos for reversing the earlier Conservative Bush-ally government’s rejectionist position on Kyoto, reverted to its traditional role as a US surrogate in the climate negotiations. Australia formally put forward the suggestion that a new unified framework be adopted in which all countries will have responsibilities, replacing the existing twin-track Kyoto framework of common but differentiated responsibilities which puts the onus of reducing emissions squarely on the developed countries while developing countries would undertake mitigation actions linked to fund and technology transfer from the former. Japan and EU countries joined the chorus led by the US. The spin put on this was that such a formulation would enable the US to come on board since the main US objection behind its refusal to join the Climate Treaty was the duality in obligations built into the Kyoto framework. 

There has been huge and instantaneous outcry from developing countries, including explicit formal statements from the G77 plus China grouping condemning this conspiracy by the developed countries, as well as from experts, commentators and numerous popular movements against these moves to undo the Kyoto framework. These efforts, which have persisted since Bangkok and through the Barcelona meet, now clearly represent a concerted push to change the terms of negotiations in Copenhagen. It is a brazen attempt to re-do the fundamental architecture of the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol which was founded on a recognition of the historical responsibility of developed countries for the climate crisis and which had been painstakingly constructed through tortuous negotiations over almost two decades since the 1991 Rio Summit.

Both at Bangkok as well as in Barcelona, the developed countries have also made only lukewarm pledges of low emission reduction commitments ranging from the virtual non-reduction commitment of 3 percent reduction by the US, to 20 percent reduction offered by the EU with a proposal to increase this to 30 percent if large developing countries also make corresponding reductions, and 25 percent offered by Japan. The effective emission reductions would be substantially less even than this, because of offsets and carbon trading in lieu of actual reduction of emissions. UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer politely characterized this as “low ambition” compared to the commitments of 40 percent reduction compared to 1990 levels required by the science.

Copenhagen sabotaged     It is in fact much more than that. The stage has effectively been set for a certain kind of outcome at Copenhagen scripted by the developed countries. The Barcelona meet was a total damp squib which made absolutely no progress beyond Bangkok and thereby more or less cemented the trend set there. At Bangkok, delegates and observers were somewhat shocked and dazed at the low level of commitments by developed countries, and the huge chasm between developed and developing countries caused by the former questioning the very Kyoto framework, all of which implied that the Copenhagen Conference would not be able to resolve these differences and come to an agreement. At Barcelona, this reality had sunk in.

Formal briefings by UNFCCC officials and Chairpersons of formal Working Groups at the conclusion of the Barcelona meet clearly brought out the massive gaps between the measures called for by the science and the various offers on the table. The Barcelona meet could not even agree on a “shared vision” of long-term goals for emission reduction!   

Future prospects were also noted as being bleak since the very concept of a global compact and binding targets was questioned by the US and leading developed countries. The US preferred to have countries making their own commitments through national legislations and to have various bilateral or multilateral arrangements for technology transfer. Obama’s climate policy is not looking very different from that of Bush!

All indications now are that Copenhagen will not yield the desired re-worked global Treaty but will conclude with a broad “political statement” of intention on the basis of which further negotiations would be carried out subsequently. To cover up for this monumental failure, and to put a spin of the world’s leaders doing their best, it is now being proposed that Heads of State or Government should attend the Conference.

This sounds good, but will only put a stamp of approval on an unacceptable compromise. If an agreement within the Kyoto framework has not been possible now, there is no reason why it be realized later. A vaguely worded “political statement” will only give the developed countries a cover to interpret the statement in their favour later and argue that so-and-so was in fact what was intended! No doubt the statement would be full of grandiose homilies about saving humanity and the planet, about keeping temperature rise within manageable limits, about low-carbon development pathways. But hidden amidst all this will be some pithy and pious phrase about how tackling this crisis is the responsibility of all nations and everybody on this planet, and this will later be used to dismantle the Kyoto architecture and supplant it with a new one in which developing countries would “share the burden” and historical responsibilities would be forgotten --- after all, it is the future that should concern us all rather than the past, right? 

These developments should not have caused as much of a surprise as they seem to be doing. As readers of these columns would know, the emerging direction has been apparent since the L’Aquila G8+G5 Summit and “Major Economies Forum” and in fact in G8+G5 Summits going back to Heiligendamm in mid-2007. Statements here contained long-term global goals of temperature reduction, global targets to reduce emissions and vaguely-worded sentiments about financing and technologies, all pointing to a blurring of distinctions between developed and developing countries, non-recognition of historical responsibility and providing an escape route to developed countries from binding targets and commitments to transfer funds and technology as part of “polluter pays” responsibilities.

India’s role        Where does India stand in all this? In recent months, a cloud of confusion has been cast around the Indian stance, not least by seemingly contradictory positions at the highest levels of the Indian government. Formally, India maintains that it sticks to the Kyoto framework of common but differentiated responsibility, that India will not undertake binding emission reduction commitments for which it would be internationally accountable. But the official negotiators have been strangely silent or at least highly subdued in the face of the volte face by the developed countries in Bangkok and Barcelona. At the same time, the Minister for Environment has been loudly proclaiming, to the apparent consternation of at least some sections within the government and the negotiating team, that India is shifting its position, that it is prepared to take unilateral measures to reduce emissions even without corresponding fund or technology transfers from developed countries, and that it wants to de-link its domestic actions from the international negotiations.

This stance has been given a nationalist even progressive spin by declaring that India would take unilateral actions because it is in its own interest to do so due to impacts in India, that India would conduct its own studies on climate change and not rely on Western studies, that India would not be accountable to any foreign or international body but only to its own parliament, only to which it would be accountable and before which the government would soon bring a Bill.

This has attracted much furious debate with some hailing the new Indian position while others attack it for abandoning traditionally held postures. What has however passed notice is that this new position eminently converges with that of the US. The US too has already passed its own (Waxman-Markey) legislation which will override any international Treaty obligations, and is now pushing other countries to similarly adopt domestic targets which it is advocating as an alternative to global arrangements. The US too has steadfastly maintained that it will not be accountable to any international body, but only to its domestic legislature, and hence has not joined the Kyoto Protocol. And the US too has cast huge doubts on the IPCC Reports saying it will prefer to go by its own studies which were arduously doctored under President Bush. Recent governmental reports casting doubts on previous IPCC findings regarding shrinking Himalayan glaciers are a case in point. At issue is not whether the glaciers are shrinking or at what rate: this could be debated by scientists through peer-reviewed publications which, incidentally, this government report is not. Problem is that the Minister, by attacking the earlier IPCC findings, is actually casting doubt on the very science of climate change, and thus on any targets set based on it! The Minister also conveniently ignores the fact that the IPCC report was based on date provided, among others, by Indian scientists and that the same IPCC Report was also endorsed by the Indian government along with other world governments. Taken together, it is difficult to accept these positions, with their cumulative positions, can be ascribed to just a few individuals in government, and one must believe that they represent the thinking of the government as a whole.

India’s new position will be happily welcomed by the US and with mutual endorsement both countries could push for adoption of similar stances by others in Copenhagen! The Minister for Environment in his various public pronouncements and in his letters to the Prime Minister and to MPs has also argued that India should be content with a “political declaration” in Copenhagen and work out details later. It is noteworthy that, notwithstanding all the controversy about some of the Minister’s remarks, none of these above positions have been contradicted by any section in the Government! India is on a very slippery slope and sliding inexorably towards joining hands with the US and other developed countries to water down the Copenhagen Conference outcome.