Your reasoning about why the IPCC estimates are guesses is ludicrous. Show me an economist who can predict the stock market over next week with 100 percent accuracy. But it is possible to provide high confidence estimates of the long term behavior based on many indicators available today. Climatologists also work in the same way (the randomness in the atmosphere is more than if not same as the randomness of human behavior) - and many of the their prediction made a decade ago have indeed come true. To not know anything about climate science and make fun of climatologists is in very bad taste.

For the first time, I disagree with your viewpoint!

First, while it is true that scientific breakthroughs only can bring about reduction in carbon emission levels, it is the governments which will make necessary investments in R&D or will offer sops to those who do. Governments will provide the legal framework for societies in general and industries in particular to operate in an environment friendly manner. Hence, a positive outcome to the Copenhagon summit is of utmost importance.

Second, international treaties are implemented or discarded based on countries' self interest is a known fact. However, To cite it as a reason for attaching little value to international treaties, especially on climate change, would be rather pessimistic.

Third, India cannot act irresponsibly by jumping the ship as others do. India is growing rapidly, and cannot afford to make the same mistakes as those committed by the developed countries when they were growing rapidly.

You have rightly compared the climate change talks/treaty to an insurance policy. Key is to arrive at a manageable premium rather than eschewing a consensus altogether for flimsy reasons.

Twitter id : @amancool5

Well Said, It means the world leaders need some break after hard work so they decide for this type of summit just for get together.No doubt treaties and agreements are viable till those are profitable.But drafts on controlling carbon emission, every country know is not a profitable business, but still they have to take some steps in positive direction just for the sake of humanity.Now point arise the breakthrough time depends on luck, it does not mean that we should stop exploring the ways and projecting the targets. In my views climate pledge is for the humanity and economy is also for the comfort of humans. But comfort can only be enjoyed if they survive.So i think climate pledges should be tried to implement full heartedly and jumping and breaking should be thrown out of mind.

While I agree with the importance (or the lack of it) of a treaty and the stand India must take, I am deeply disturbed by the observations on the scientific understanding. You correctly point out we need to stop polluting, but not as an insurance, but because situation absolutely merits it.

Let me state the argument for you:
*Are we changing the composition of the atmosphere: Yes
*Do we “completely” understand the consequence of the same: No
*What is our best understanding of the consequences? That it will most likely lead to an increase in temperature and significant changes to the biosphere which would be devastating for humans.
*What is the probability of the above scenario: about 90% (IPCC)
*Will we be able to reverse the changes or attlease arrest them: Maybe, again depending on our luck. There is also a chance we might make the situation even worse.
*Can we do something about it now: STOP POLLUTING!

I would also like to point out the nature of statistical physics. To take an economics example, a change in interest rate cannot predict the exact onion prices tomorrow at a particular mandi (you simply cannot as there are too many variables). However, it is predictive of macro- economic changes that may happen. At least it provides a trend, which is used to make decisions. Similarily, the IPCC Report gives a trend (one that has observable consequences) based on the general data and it does not predict individual events. Day to day weather for example are events are in any case statistical in nature.

A deal nevertheless seems useful even for the most cynical, as it will atleast assure some money to R&D which people may not be willing to risk otherwise. Many times its not markets but public projects which have created great innovation. We can pray that it might happen here too and soon as technology IMHO can affect cost quicker than the other way round.

What is happenning in Copenhagen is caled in game theory parlance 'cheap talk'. When cheap talk is involved game theory suggests that promise maximum to appear as a 'good boy'.Swami rightly recommends that policy. Well done, Swami.

Sir, we depend largely upon Himalayan region for water, rains, climate. Environments here must be protected. The forest cover need to be minimum forty percent. This should be achieved as a first step in overall interest if India.

You've taken the examples of some 5-6 odd treaties that have been violated. But, what about hundreds of other International treaties that are not broken and not violated? I think it is a one-sided view.

Likewise, your take that scientists cannot predict weather after 100 years just because they cannot predict after 5 days, is not logical. Take the example of stock market (you're an economist, so you must understand it). You cannot predict what the stock market will be like after one week. But, you can definitely predict what the stock market be like after say 10 years. Long term is easier to predict than the short term. Predicting weather after 100 years is easier than predicting it after 10 days.

Moreover, it is a faulty logic to say that just because a treaty "may be" violated so don't have a treaty at all!!! That way, no work can be done ever, if one has that sort of negative attitude. Please understand that even if a treaty ultimately fails, there are benefits in the intermediate period. There are some indirect benefits. At least, there are some preventive benefits, i.e., at least the problem will not worsen if it cannot improve. Then there is at least some positive moral pressure of a treaty. Sometimes, one treaty can lead to another treaty. Sometimes, a treaty can put pressure on Governments to spend more money on technological advancements. Even otherwise, a treaty may indirectly advance technological advancements by creating a right environment for the same.

So, I am sorry Mr. Aiyer, normally I find most of your articles to be of the outstanding quality, this one appears to be illogical.

I dont know where to start.

1. You seem to have forgotten that market is not always able to address coordination problems and externalities. Market failures, if you will. This is nothing but an attempt to address both. This is no different from other pollution markets.

2. India needs glaciers, doesnt it? Much of the west has the wealth to handle the problems. India doesnt. This is yet another place where economics fails. It discounts the future and it cant put numbers. Mr. Aiyar deserves responsibility if the country does not take the risk seriously.

3. You colleagues, Mr. Aiyar, brought the world to the brink of collapse. Climate scientists didnt do anything of that sort. They have little power. Your colleagues do and they are not very good at guesstimating either.

4. Technology to achieve decarbonization is here. The cost of doing all this is not 1-2% of global GDP. Scaling up non-carbon sources requires placing a price on carbon which is what all this is about.

I used to read Mr. Aiyar's articles in the past. I am glad I dont any more.

Four points:
1) " In the Kyoto treaty on climate change, 37 rich countries pledged to reduce their carbon emissions to 5% below their 1990 level. But most actually increased their emissions." Wrong - Infact EU 27, which is a major single block of 27 countries under the Kyoto is well within reaching/surpassing its 2012 Kyoto targets. Only, Canada and Japan are struggling to meeting their Kyoto targets.

2) Treaties may be realised or may not be achieved, true. But at least it can be an aspiring goalpost for the parties involved. Remember, this is like an individual having goals/ vision for his/ her life. Without having a goalpost for an individual/country, the world would not have been a better place.

3) Technology may not have had breakthrough, but there is definitely reduction in unit cost and improvement in efficieny over the years. And many will reach breakeven in the coming years. The role of policy (example mass transit) also plays a key role.

4) By the way the comments are made by the author, some can only be amused by the naivety of discussion here. Thank Goodness, the author is not in the policy making arena.

Lastly, watch out Mr. Aiyar - reducing carbon emissions will be one of the biggest business line in the coming years for the industry.

"Can they predict the next drought in India? No. The next El Nino? No. The number of hurricanes in the Caribbean next year? No. So, can they accurately predict the weather 100 years hence? Surely not. When we know very little about a problem, we tend to worry endlessly about worst-case scenarios. That does not make the worst case certain, or even probable."

Forget climate scientists, even economists cannot predict when the next economic crisis will occur. So, should economists stop thinking about regulation?

this is the perfect view of the scenario.I watched a a series on some channel about how all the glaciers in the antartica have receded completly and reformed 7 times in the life span of the earth.Then why so much hue and cry about receding glaciers.A 100 thousand years ago there was no carbon gas emmissions to effect this.No doubt there is a change in the climate around the world.It is the cold west which is feeling the heat and they want the others to pay price for their mistakes.It is not acceptable.

Anubhav

On one hand, the research studies revealed that there is only a negligible raise in temperature of the earth, on the other hand, the world is grappling with melting glaciers etc., The problem is very complex and as Swami explained is a thing which can not be predicted with certainity. The scientific world is groping in dark. But, as we buy insurance without knowing what is going to happen, as a contigency it is better to cut the emissions. In the process, new technologies can be developed which could be of help in reducing the greenhouse gases. When the phenomena as to the melting glaciers and rising sea levels could not be explained, the diagnosis should be in favour of cutting emissions only.

Let's all be cynical. That's the only way we can really make any progress.

If the amount of money they have spent on this conference on global warming instead given to poor people many would have become honourable citizens and their hunger would have gone.

India should talk tough and not worry about being called a deal-breaker.
--------------

Agree with everything you put forth here, except the last part about Indian stance, as quoted above. At stake for India are also inclusion norms to many fora, and access to a vast array of technologies, and these are mostly available by invitation only. Presently there is enormous goodwill for India in US and EU, why fritter it away?

We do need to work with China and developing nations to insure that per capita emission become the basis for normative long term constraint in international law. Presently this may work out in the vicinity of 4MT per person per year. Either we have agreement on this principle, nor agree to disagree. The peaking year formula is a prescription for permanent disability for all developing nations. There is no room for compromise here.

However, conformance to the extent possible in other domains would be a great enabler of Indian manufacturing. We need to accept as much constraints on emission as we possibly can, making room for developed nations to do their part in course of time. This give up what you can give up, take what you need to take spirit exercised with noble intent may strengthen the friendly ambience which has already been created thanks to reasonably sound Indian diplomacy.

Let us be pragmatic, Indian weight is considerable, but a bit too tough stand shall make us sound shrill in the international fora.

incorrect and fallacious arguments, unlike the usual articles by you. disappointing.

An excellent article. Climate change is, of course, there due to carbon emissions, ever increasing global population which emits more and more CO2 and deforestation done to meet the needs of this increasing population but only new innovations would be able to cut the carbon emissions but deforestation would continue unless we check our population like China. It may happen that more innovative ideas may emerge which may make us not rely on deforestation to meet the increasing demand of the growing population. When and how these innovations and innovative ideas would emerge or take concrete shape, nobody can tell as aptly pointed out by the blogger. It may not be out of context to state that Muslims think that Allah is responsible for all creation including the creation of human beings and he would look after all human beings. It may so happen that Allah may put brilliant ideas in the minds of some scientists and they might be able to solve the problem of climate change including finding land on some other planets where human beings could live. We do not know the ways of Allah (Nature).

I completely disagree with your views on this matter.How can we say that Copehagen Summit hardly matters???If all the nations work together on this issue then we can surely make it a success.What does it mean that India shouldn't worry about being called a deal breaker???It's indeed shamefull i feel on the part of india to back up.
Everyone should agree with this policy of reducing the carbon emissions by 80%.If don't do it today then,I feel we are even making the situation even worse.The climate has been changing adversely.If dont sacrifice our living standards then we are going do destroy our earth with our own hands.It's visible infront of our eyes; the exessive rainfall,the hot temperature througout the year,the thermal expansion of the oceans,the melting glaciers and all.
So I feel ,instead of thinking that we are just developing natins and we haven't created this current scenario we should co-operate and work together in 'saving' the earth.

Every nation has an incentive to procrastinate: nobody wants to reduce carbon emissions on their own. Global warming is the first true global problem we have ever faced, and we need every nation to participate, or else there is no solution. By burning its own fossil fuels, Africa could unwillingly cause trillions of dollars worth of damage to the United States when sea levels rise and polar caps melt.

Developing nations need energy to stave off poverty, and 89 per cent of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels. Over 50 per cent of the world’s population lives on less than $2 per day, and in excess of 1.3 billion people are at the edge of survival with $1 per day. Developing nations house 80 per cent of humankind but emit only 40 per cent of the world’s emissions, while 60 per cent of global emissions originate from the rich nations that house 20 per cent of the world’s population.

Poor nations can hardly reduce energy use and compromise economic growth that is sorely needed to eradicate poverty. Independently from one’s sympathies, there is a stark reality that is pointed out by conservatives in the U.S. Senate: there is no point for the United States and other rich nations to reduce emissions on their own.

Developing nations contribute today a minority of the emissions, but in 20 or 30 years, as they grow, they will hold the deciding card on global warming. Undoubtedly, this is truly a global game of “chicken”: we are now playing with the metabolism of the planet and nobody can hide as the seas rise.

But at Copenhagen negotiators will be sophisticated diplomats who will not break cover. Without compulsion to agree, there will be no agreement. The Berlin Mandate in 1995 committed the world to an agreement, and the Kyoto Protocol was born in 1997. In 2007, the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali concluded that the 2009 conference in Copenhagen would resolve the problem of Kyoto post-2012. So, in this context, Copenhagen is truly “do or die”.

If the vehicular and industrial emissions get reduced, the number of vehicles and industries is still increasing. Reducing emission levels is not the only way ahead.
1. We could encourage people across globe to use bicycles for short distance drives if climate permits.
2. Ban vehicles during certain hours of day in residential localities.
3. Impose stricter laws to punish vehicle users who do not follow emission norms
4. Confine movement of auto rickshaws within certain radial distances. This way long distance drives on autos would be discouraged
5. Offer tax benefits to solar powered / battery powered / hybrid vehicles

Similar plans could be made for industries as well. Reducing oil consumption would free developing countries from large payments to oil rich nations.

The high profile drama of powerful and developed countries like the US might throw the Copenhagen summit to futility. Target to fully combat carbon emission by 2020 from India, that too without any financial assistance, is seen as gross injustice. Ironically our concerned minister also miserably failed to presume implications and agreed upon the proposal meted out by western powers. At this moment a strong public opinion is ineviteble to impart respite to India. This will be necessary in view of availing last and ultimate opportunity to achieve the goal.

I am reminded of Mahathma Gandhi's words - the earth can meet everybody's needs but nonés greed. I think Swami has missed the mark by a mile here. There is plenty of statistical data to show that temperatures are going up and that the glaciers are vanishing. One sceintific explanation for this is the greenhouse effect. While I agree that nobody can predict, can we afford not to act?? Hardly so. Sane logic defines that we must act based on our best knowledge and capabilities.

As many readers have observed, not everything can be logically explained or predicted. Going by Swami's logic, Indian cricket team may go into a match without any plan as it is not sure how it would turn out, or companies launching a new product need not study the market and make a plan as there is no guarantee that the data will be accurate or that the best marketing plan would succeed or for that matter people should be getting medical treatment for critical illnesses as there is no guarantee for recovery.

The point is that do we want to leave this planet in a healthy state for the future generations? If so, then the time to act is now. I for one think that it is not just states, but every individual who can make a difference and for this to happen,some of us need to be pushed.

Most of the movement in response to climate change has been about reducing our carbon footprint but the ways and means to do so appear fundamentally unviable because of the expensive,far fetched or downright loony ways to do it.

The only way to achieve meaningful technologies and ways to reduce the carbon footprint is to ensure that enterprising human minds feel that building climate friendly technologies are monetarily rewarding.The example of aerosol cans and the banning of CFCs appear to be a one off example and an exception.Much of the most polluting industries exist because there isnt a viable eco-friendly technology available and if there is a possibility to develop one it is pushed down by the vested interests in polluting industries who fear any change in the status quo.

To make people believe in eco-friendliness both politically and more importantly economically there is a need to impress upon peoples minds the possibility of monetary gain and political backing for R&D leading to climate friendly technologies.

The Copenhagen summit has focused the eyes of the entire world not only on climate change but also on the idea that World Governments will financially back & reward climate friendly technologies.This will go a long way in making people believe there is money to be made in climate change.And where theres money to be made innovation leading to climate freindly technologies will follow due to the invisible hand of the market.

The Copenhagen summit may not reach a treaty but it may not need a treaty as the eyes of the people will be focused on saving the environment and also on making money doing it.Climate friendly tech today is like the unattainable time machine.But if enough people are looking for it then someone will just go ahead and build it.

Sir Idisagree with your views on this matter.How can we say that Copehagen Summit hardly matters???If all the nations work together on this issue then we can surely make it a success.What does it mean that India shouldn't worry about being called a deal breaker???It's indeed shamefull i feel on the part of india to back up.
Everyone should agree with this policy of reducing the carbon emissions by 80%.If don't do it today then,I feel we are even making the situation even worse.The climate has been changing adversely.If dont sacrifice our living standards then we are going do destroy our earth with our own hands.It's visible infront of our eyes; the exessive rainfall,the hot temperature througout the year,the thermal expansion of the oceans,the melting glaciers and all.
So I feel ,instead of thinking that we are just developing natins and we haven't created this current scenario we should co-operate and work together in 'saving' the earth.

I recommend watching the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle". It just gives you another perspective!!

I am very much surprised to read this particular article by Mr.Swaminathan by carelessly handling a delicate issue.How can he arrive at an early conclusion that all international treaties are hopeless, while the heads of states are working hard to arrive at an amicable agreement on carbon emissions?Looks like he is still running away from his homework before starting to type an essay to a responsible newspaper in the country.