G-8 Summit and Role of India
Recent Development
The 31st G-8 Summit held on
These five countries are expected to become the new economic powers in the 21st century. The leaders of these emerging economies were rubbing shoulders with the leaders of eight rich and powerful nations of the world at the picturesque Baltic seaside resort in
There have been similar attempts in the past to come together by the developing countries. There was the G-77, then there was the G-15; in recent times, there was the G-4, apart from
Indian Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, is annoyed at the unequal status given to outreach nations in the just concluded G-8 summit in
Dr Singh said there could be no meaningful management of global issues if
During the G-8 summit this year,
Dr. Singh complained about the ambitious Millennium Development Goals, set for African countries by the G-8 nations, and said that these goals have not come up to the expectations.
G-8 Nations and their
The Group of Eight (G8) is an international forum for the governments of
The group's activities include year-round conferences and policy research, culminating with an annual summit meeting attended by the heads of government of the member states. The European Commission is also represented at the meetings.
Each year, member states of the G8 take turns assuming the presidency of the group. The holder of the presidency sets the group's annual agenda and hosts the summit for that year.
Group of Eight (8) was formed at the initiative of former United States Bill Clinton in 1997. This was partly a gesture of appreciation from
The G8 is intended to be an informal forum, and it therefore lacks an administrative structure like those for international organizations, such as the United Nations or the World Bank
G-5 within G-8
The G-5 is a powerful group of developing countries and there is convergence of views on several issues, such as global warming and
The G-5 felt that there could be no meaningful dialogue in the summit without the presence of
The G-8 watchers could not miss the India-China alliance to oppose the developed countries' efforts to limit their greenhouse gas emissions.
At the Heiligendamm summit, the G-5 rejected the attempts made by the
The Indian officials claim that the formation of the G-5 is not for disengaging from the G-8, but to engage with it in a more meaningful manner, besides protecting the interests of the developing countries. The idea will be taken forward in the Foreign Ministers' meeting of the G-5 in September on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. Only time will tell whether this new group will be effective or not.
India , Climate Change and G-8 nations
Group of Eight nations reached agreement aimed at halving greenhouse gases by 2050, and the US had also signed up.This was the main highlight of the G-Summit meet
The developed nations used G-8 summit as a platform to give impetus to negotiations that would begin in
At the heart of
India has 17 per cent of the world's population, it emits only four per cent of the global greenhouse gases. Per capita emissions are thus relatively small, just one-quarter of the world average, and four per cent of that in the
While the rate of growth in the gross domestic product has exceeded eight per cent a year, the rate of increase in primary energy consumption has been just 2.76 per cent.
That would imply drastic cuts in emissions in developed countries if the world is meet the target of keeping global warming within the generally agreed 'safe limit' of two degrees, as set out by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The divide which will face developed and developing nations when they meet in
Despite claims of a climate change 'deal' at the G8 summit last week, the meeting only served to increase Indian irritation at being treated as "petitioners not partners" at the global top table.
Mr Ghosh said it was now up to the world to decide how big the 'carbon pie' should be at a certain point in the future - say, 2050 - and then agree that by that date all nations should have an equal entitlement relative to their size of population.
At present, the average
While
G- 8 Summit and Indo- US nuclear deal
At the sidelines of the G-8 Summit US President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and discussed the much contentious Indo-US nuclear deal that was signed in March 2006 and that was passed in the US Congress in December 2006.
Both sides are bargaining hard as they test each other's will to implement the agreement quickly. They are mobilising their energies both in bilateral talks and through media comments.
Under the deal, the
Meanwhile,
The SCO includes
As of today, the negotiations of Indo-US deal have revealed that disagreement existed on five major issues: (a) Testing; (b) Right of return; (c) Safeguards; (d) Fuel assurances; and (e) Right to reprocess spent fuel.
When the US Congress passed the Henry J Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 in December.
The Hyde Act did redefine the nature of the "full civilian cooperation." thereby giving the impression to
While Indian nuclear hawks run a spirited campaign against the deal as a "sellout" and a "coup" to defang India, an impressive number of U.S. Nobel laureates have issued a strong statement against the agreement.
In the nuclear poker between
One set pertains to ‘technical', but important, questions: What kind of safeguards must
The second issue concerns possible further nuclear testing by
Ideally, the
But
These issues will figure in the coming round of talks next month. Both sides are proceeding with cautious optimism.
However, the Bush administration may not find it possible to pilot the agreement through unless it is seen to have extracted an additional assurance from
After
The current negotiations between the
The bill's passage may not be smooth. There is significant opposition to the deal in the House of Representatives and from non-proliferation experts. Indian-American groups as well as the Indian government's lobbying agencies are working furiously to garner support for the deal.
Eminent scholars and scientists in the U.S have now joined opposition to the deal. As many as 37 Nobel laureates have urged the Congress not to approve the deal "in its current form" because it is a "formula for destroying American non-proliferation goals."
In a letter, supported by the pro-peace federation of American scientists, they argue that the agreement "weakens the existing non-proliferation regime without providing an acceptable substitute. Since nothing is more important to
The laureates include the distinguished economist Kenneth J. Arrow and scientists Raul Christian Lauterbur, Alfred Goodman Gilman, Roger Guilemin and Donald A. Glaser.
Interestingly, their letter criticises
It also holds that the rapid growth of civilian nuclear power would increase the amount of fissionable material stored worldwide, and the number of facilities that could be used to build nuclear weapons.
As the
Meanwhile, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director-general Mohammed El-Baradei has weighed in on the side of the deal, and termed it "a creative break with the past." He says it would be illogical to deny civil nuclear technology to India --a country that has "not violated any legal commitment and never encouraged nuclear weapons proliferation" and is "a valued partner and a trusted contributor to international peace and security."
"This only casts doubt on the impartiality and credibility of the IAEA as a global nuclear watchdog," holds academic and anti-nuclear activist Chenoy.
On conducting a nuclear test, the Indian officials seem to have indicated that there was no way
Our neighbourhood is surrounded by untrustworthy nations. The relation of
Compromising on this issue is akin to compromising with the security of nation in the long term.
Section 123(a)(4) of the US Atomic Energy Act gives the US government the right to require the return of any nuclear material and equipment transferred under this deal and any special materials produced through the use thereof, if India conducts nuclear test or terminated or abrogates the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement. Presently, the Hyde Act does not exempt
On the other key issue of reprocessing of spent fuel right, the American officials have conceded that neither the Hyde Act nor any other law prevents US from giving consent on reprocessing to
PM Manmohan Singh was playing the political card when he told the members of the G8, the group of eight industrialised nations, at Heiligendamm earlier this month that "we have come here not as petitioners but as partners."
It was obvious that India and the four other rising economies, China, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa, which make up the G-5, were miffed that the G8 declaration issued a day before their joint meeting had already laid out the terms of a purported agreement on ways to counter climate change. Much as the world's rich nations that comprise the G8, the U.S., the U.K., Germany, Japan, France, Russia, Italy, and Canada, would like to co-opt the G-5 in the plan to reduce carbon emissions around the world, it was quite evident that none of the five was happy being told to go easy on carbon emissions.
"We have not come here to discuss targets or accept internationally enforced targets on us," Dr. Singh said at the meeting. But in an interaction with the German Chancellor and summit host, Angela Merkel, he did say that the developing nations would accept their responsibilities. "We can assure the world that at no time, our per capita emissions will exceed that of the developed countries."
He went on to add, "This will act as a two-way incentive. If the developed countries do more to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions per capita, we will also reward them by doing more."
Dr. Singh might have been tempted to tell the leaders of the developed world to first reduce their consumption of fossil fuel before lecturing others. Of course he and his colleagues on the G5 did emphasise the larger role the developed world had in addressing climate change "given their responsibilities in causing it." But one must compliment him for going beyond the rhetoric and offering to do some corrections at home. A country on the road to development will get there quicker and more certainly if it chooses the more efficient energy route.
For
The Energy Loss
Over 320 million tonnes of coal was burnt in 2006-07 to produce electricity, a lot of it in power stations owned by State electricity boards whose boilers are not terribly efficient in extracting the energy in the coal. Critical appraisals show some of these power plants have a thermal efficiency (a measure of how much electrical energy they can extract from coal) of between 20 per cent and 30 per cent. (Source: NTPC presentation to the IEA, 2004) Take out the energy used in running the power plant, estimated to be 8.5 per cent of energy that is generated, (source: Central Electricity Authority) and the losses in transmission and distribution (about 20 per cent), the other example of crushing inefficiency in the electricity system, just about 14 per cent to 22 per cent of the energy in the coal finally reaches the plug point in your home.
And in the evening when you switch on the light, typically a 60 W incandescent bulb, in your living room, the decisive wastage takes place. The bulb uses just 10 per cent of the energy to light up the room; the other 90 per cent is released as heat.
So just 1.4 per cent to 2.2 per cent of the energy that once was in the coal turns up as the light that you want.
In contrast, modern thermal plants are now capable of a thermal efficiency in excess of 40 per cent, they consume only about 5 per cent in-station, and if transmission and distribution losses can be contained at levels prevalent in developed countries, up to 35 per cent of the energy in the coal can be served up as electricity to the consumer.
This implies that if all plants and transmission lines are upgraded — obviously the vintage units are beyond makeover and need to be shut down — the country can make do with just two-thirds of the coal that it currently burns. Emissions will drop proportionately.
However, if such corrective action is not launched, the scenario will get bleaker.
Already the availability of electricity is 10 per cent short of demand and just about half the population has access to it. A 57 per cent increase in capacity is needed over the next five years to meet the anticipated energy needs of an economy growing at around 8 per cent a year and the other half of the populace aspiring to join the bandwagon.
Some 542 million tonnes of coal will be required each year by 2012 to meet the demand for electricity. Coalmines in the country may not be able to produce enough; imports may be necessary and will be costly in a global market where supplies are taut. The additional load of carbon emissions may be embarrassingly large