Magsaysay Award winner and water
conservationist Rajendra Singh says the landmark agreement on climate change
reached in Paris earlier in December could harm India’s interests. “The Paris
agreement is a defeat for India, and it is a sign that our country has let
developed countries like America take the upper hand,” Mr. Singh (56), who is known as the “Waterman
of India,” has been awarded the prestigious Stockholm Water Prize for
outstanding achievement in water conservation. “I was anguished to read the
official statements of the government,” he said. “India's knowledge system
prioritises love and respect for nature. We are leaders in this field, but with
the Paris agreement we have given a clear path for commercialisation of nature.
This is completely against our tradition.” The Paris agreement, Mr. Singh
feels, absolves the United States of its liability for causing climate change
in the first place, and goes against the spirit of the Rio de Janeiro,
Copenhagen and Kyoto summits which imposed financial damages on it. “This means
America has won and it means that the world's environment has been put in
danger,” Mr Singh said. “Everyone was looking to the Paris summit to make the
U.S. pay damages, but now it has succeeded in bringing itself on the same
playing field as developing countries in terms of liability, even though
everyone acknowledges that America is the major culprit.” Mr. Singh was in
Paris during the negotiations, and he alleges that much of the process was a
discussion on business interests rather than environmental concerns. “COP 21(Conference of Parties) became a playground for business and economic interests
of developed countries, and they forced everyone to accept their terms. They
are happy now,” he said. There were close to 40,000 attendees, but the real
decision makers made up a “blue zone” of not more than 400. “They called the
shots,” It was because of this, he said,
he organised an alternative COP forum along with likeminded activists who
decided to talk about “climate and not business,” Mr. Singh said, “We were
campaigning for conservation of water and soil, and we demanded that the
damages that countries like America have to pay should be invested in the
conservation of both. “If they were really discussing the environment, they
would be discussing water and greenery. Instead they only ended up talking
about the sale and purchase of technology and how different consultancies could
be engaged to help one another.” Globally, Mr. Singh explained, the production
of electricity through coal is considered damaging, with countries pushing for
greater clean energy use.

No comments:
Post a Comment