China, India, Brazil, South Africa plan joint walkout if pressured at Copenhagen

From the Times of India – a “put up or shut up” moment – “we’ll go along if you pay us”.

Excerpts below:

BEIJING: In an unprecedented move, India on Saturday joined China and two other developing countries to prepare for a major offensive on rich nations at the Copenhagen conference on climate change next month.

The four countries, which include Brazil and South Africa, agreed to a strategy that involves jointly walking out of the conference if the developed nations try to force their own terms on the developing world, Jairam Ramesh, the Indian minister for environment and forests (independent charge), said.

“We will not exit in isolation. We will co-ordinate our exit if any of our non-negotiable terms is violated. Our entry and exit will be collective,” Ramesh told reporters in Beijing.

The move comes after reports suggested that rich nations led by Denmark are trying to set the agenda of the conference by presenting a draft containing a set of specific proposals.

The four nations issued a joint press release, which made it clear the developed nations should be ready to contribute funds and share green technology if they expected the developing and poor nations to take major actions on environmental protection.

The developing nations will also not accept any pressure from developed countries to establish legally binding emission targets at Copenhagen. Developing countries want to be allowed to reduce emissions voluntarily and take what they consider to be “nationally appropriate actions” he said.

Ramesh said India will under no circumstances accept the concept of a peaking year under which each country will have to indicate on what date they will reach the highest level of pollution before beginning to come down.

India will also not accept any unsupported mitigation actions without any effort by developed countries to provide funds and technology support to improve environment in developing nations.

Read the complete article at the Times of India

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 30, 2009 10:37 pm

This entire conference has become a blatant exercise of the transfer of wealth from western nations. So – I really hope they do walk out.

November 30, 2009 10:42 pm

Well good on them. Nor should they accept anything without bucketloads of cash.
Of course the big question is why the hell are the developed nations messing about with this in the first place?
It may not have been great political thinking but the change of Opposition leadership here in Australia – driven by a revolt against an Emissions Trading Scheme – has squashed (almost) any chance of an ETS being passed before Copenhagen.
If Australia, with a green-hued Labor government, can’t pass it, and the US, with uncle O in change can’t pass it, why should the poor countries pay any price at all?

November 30, 2009 10:43 pm

While not quite a walkout we did have a major event in Australian politics today. The climate sceptics in the opposition Liberal party have won an election for control of the party. This will make the passage of Rudd’s ETS scheme though the senate more unlikely, leaving him with nothing to take to Copenhagen.
What a great day…..perhaps the rest of the world might take notice, we have a real head to head battle on climate change in the making.

November 30, 2009 10:47 pm

If this doesn’t show the whole Copenhagen charade is about economics then what does? The whole thing is a farcical summit to throw our money and the developing world, so they can spend it on climate ‘solutions’ made by our businesses.
Meanwhile in the UK, the CRU’s media offensive continues as Richard Black of the BBC comes to the aid of his best mate Phil the Shred.

November 30, 2009 10:51 pm

For the Western nations it’s Other People’s Money (the taxpayers) anyway and it’s not like politicians don’t love to spend money, so I don’t see this as being a big deal holding them up. These countries are just asking to be bribed.

November 30, 2009 10:58 pm

Isn’t this basically imperialism? The western powers are creating a false fear and telling the developing world they will have to slow down… by what right can they do that?

November 30, 2009 11:07 pm

Sending money to developing countries is no solution. Even assuming any of the money actually gets past the UN’s Kofi-Annanesque blood-sucking bureaucracy, the third-world nations constitute a bottomless pit of greed, corruption, and governmental malfeasance. The money will be used to line the pockets of petty official and their relatives.
I’ve read the draft treaty, including the part where it sets up a government not elected by anyone, takes away US sovereignty, and mandates penalties for non-compliance. Even without Climategate, signature of the Copenhagen Treaty would be an act of treason.

November 30, 2009 11:12 pm

So let me get this straight. Over 50% of the world’s population and the greatest polluters and carbon emitters must not be held responsible for their actions and 100% of the responsibility must be placed on the other less than 50% of the world’s population?
I have a suggestion. How about a global tax on carbon emissions that taxes tons of CO2 per unit of economic output? That way cleaner economies pay less, dirtier economies pay more. That gives incentives for everyone to clean up their act. Each year the “cleanest” economy is chosen (no handicapping!). Each nation pays a tax at a rate on a sliding scale according to their delta from the cleanest. The cleanest nation has a multiplier of 0.10 and the dirtiest a multiplier of 1.00 (pays the full tax rate per ton of CO2).
The tax is collected, turned into Zimbabwe dollars and burned in a power plant that produces the power for UN headquarters. /sarc

Roger Knights
November 30, 2009 11:13 pm

All that’s needed to cap this comedy is lots of snowfall, so the bunch of them have to get to the airport in a troika.

Zeke the Sneak
November 30, 2009 11:16 pm

‘The developing nations will also not accept any pressure from developed countries to establish legally binding emission targets at Copenhagen. Developing countries want to be allowed to reduce emissions voluntarily and take what they consider to be “nationally appropriate actions” he said.’
Didn’t they read the treaty?
(a) Mitigation commitments by all developed countries are legally binding economy wide
and absolute quantified emission reduction commitments;
(b) Mitigation actions by developing countries are voluntary and nationally appropriate
actions, supported and enabled by technology, finance and capacity-building, which
reduce or avoid emissions relative to baseline. pg 58
It’s already in there.
PS Go Aussies!

Atomic Hairdryer
November 30, 2009 11:18 pm

Given the state of the UK economy at present, do we count as a ‘poor nation’ yet? Maybe this is Gordon Brown’s cunning plan. Sign Copenhagen, add our PFI debts to our balance sheets and then extend hand.

Methow Ken
November 30, 2009 11:19 pm

If on top of ClimateGate the BASIC countries DO end up walking out in Copenhagen, those 2 things together will indeed likely amount to a game-changing tipping point. Here’s to tipping. . . .

Nick Stokes
November 30, 2009 11:21 pm

James (22:42:05) :
It may not have been great political thinking but the change of Opposition leadership here in Australia – driven by a revolt against an Emissions Trading Scheme – has squashed (almost) any chance of an ETS being passed before Copenhagen.

Actually, the Senate vote will be very interesting. The new leader, Abbott, won by one vote within his party. Labor will be united in the Senate and may get the support of the Greens, which leaves them two votes short of a majority; the Liberals will have to change their vote with near unanimity to block it. The double dissolution election which that would make possible would be disastrous for them, and many Senators would fear for their seats. For some, that would cut short a remaining four years of their term. We shall see.

November 30, 2009 11:39 pm

So the greatest debtor nation in the world have to pay the the ones with the greatest cash surpluses. Its not coincidental that they are also the greatest polluters on the planet.
How stupid can the western left-green coalition get?

November 30, 2009 11:45 pm

I know there is going to be a lot of bashing of developing nations over this. Let’s get one thing straight I don’t believe in AGW.
Here are a few points to consider IMHO.
1) Co2 alarmism originated in the West;
2) The main push today to reduce man-made C02 comes from the West;
3) The average Co2 footprint per person in developing countries is lower than the Wests.
I welcome any corrections from people regarding the above points. Those who want Copenhagen to fail should be thrilled that China, India, Brazil and South Africa are prepared to walk out if their terms are not met as it can only increase the chances of failure imho.

November 30, 2009 11:49 pm

I have a suggestion. How about a global tax on carbon emissions that taxes tons of CO2 per unit of economic output? That way cleaner economies pay less, dirtier economies pay more. That gives incentives for everyone to clean up their act. Each year the “cleanest” economy is chosen (no handicapping!). Each nation pays a tax at a rate on a sliding scale according to their delta from the cleanest. The cleanest nation has a multiplier of 0.10 and the dirtiest a multiplier of 1.00 (pays the full tax rate per ton of CO2).

Many people in Mongolia alive in tents and burn coal to keep warm on winter nights that get down to -40. Mongolia is a poor country but has large coal reserves, and no other practical domestic energy sources. This proposal would kill many people.

some bloke
December 1, 2009 12:06 am

Just a pre-announced bargaining ploy to demand more cash.

December 1, 2009 12:25 am

Wow, China would win twice on that one. Free tech AND more US debt to own.

December 1, 2009 12:28 am

Never mind, I’m sure the West will still agree to unilateral economic disarmament.

John F. Hultquist
December 1, 2009 12:33 am

Without some background reading I’m unsure of how the “PFI debts” (public finance initiative) correlates with the debt of other countries. The USA has huge commitments for future payments via social security and health plus a few more. The US Govt. uses accounting practices that put corporate executives behind bars and their companies out of business. The truth is the US is deeply in debt but keeps writing IOUs and printing new money as needed. The “cash for clunkers” deal being just one example. Yes, the US and other countries can fashion more money out of thin air but that makes everyone poorer. And the money isn’t really printed so there is nothing to burn as ‘crosspatch’ suggested above.

December 1, 2009 12:34 am

Imagine my surprise. China “wakes up to global warming”, and the first thing they do is look for the money. Hands up who didn’t see that coming?

December 1, 2009 12:45 am

Gee guys have you got to go.Watch the door does not hit you on the way out.

John Peter
December 1, 2009 12:57 am

As quoted above by Tony (22:47:06) The BBC’s Richard Black is again excelling in more alarmism about Antarctica
Basically the proposition from the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) is that the west Antarctica peninsula is smelting due to higher temperatures and whereas the east Antarctica is currently cooler that will not last as the ozone hole fills up with ozone and then gets warmer resulting in “Sea levels are likely to rise by about 1.4m (4ft 6in) globally by 2100 as polar ice melts, according to a major review of climate change in Antarctica.” as the headline proclaims. This is apparently mostly due to the Montreal protecol. Surely somebody with the knowledge ought to respond to this forecast apparently backed by a hundred or so scientists.

December 1, 2009 12:59 am

I invite everyone to listen to this podcast
It explain who created the Hadley Center CRU. The Malthusian background of those people explain their motive to push policies and science (bad) for depopulation.
They tried global cooling in the 70’s and now they push warming. The reason behind all this is explained beautifully.

Richard Heg
December 1, 2009 1:33 am

Do they think they will really get the money?
A relevant story to India’s position on climate change,
“Himalayan glaciers’ ‘mixed picture'”

John Trigge
December 1, 2009 1:59 am

As an Aussie who has been sending anti-AGW emails to our senators and my local Federal member of Parliament, I’m feeling quite empowered with the Liberal party leadership change.
Unfortunately, emails to Labor politicians result in buck-passing to ‘the Minister responsible for the portfolio’ and then nothing further.
I dread what our illustrious Prime Minister KRudd is going to commit us to in Copenhagen.

December 1, 2009 2:28 am

Developing countries (India, Brazil et al.) repeatedly blame the Industrial Revolution in Britain, Europe and US for so-called AGW risks. One wonders where those countries would be now if there had been no large-scale industrialisation with all the other benefits, including revolutions in medicine and agriculture, that flowed from it.

Leon Brozyna
December 1, 2009 2:37 am

To put it in simple terms, the U.S. has already cleaned up (over the past 50 years) its own pollution. Now it’s to pay to clean up on its own CO2, as well as the real pollution in India, China, et al as well as their CO2.
The Senate will never ratify such a treaty. Assuming such silliness is signed in Copenhagen, don’t expect the Senate to roll over and agree to it. It’s DOA (dead on arrival). Especially during an election year with a third of the Senate seats up for reelection.

Robert Morris
December 1, 2009 2:59 am

B]rukidding[/B] (00:45:31) :
[I]Gee guys have you got to go.Watch the door does not hit you on the way out.
[/I][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Enigmatic stuff. Thanks for contributing.

Jack Jennings
December 1, 2009 3:26 am

Surely we need to clarify this term “developing”?
Australia doesn’t have a nuclear arsenal, nor does it have nuclear power stations or a massive industrialised base. We largely subsist off agricultural production and mineral exhumation and certainly do not have a lunar space program in progress. But neither did we massacre 50 million of our own people on ideological grounds.
So when they mean “developing”, I take it they mean “developing” towards civilised governance and basic medical for all citizens.
And Australia is still struggling to provide basic medical and education to all it’s citizens. Surely this is more important than funding some poorly demonstrated hypothesis on global heat rise due to CO2?
Come the revolution !

December 1, 2009 3:40 am

Wait a minute. DECEMBER 7TH? They’re starting this on the anniversary of PEARL HARBOUR???
A day that will live in infamy… again?

December 1, 2009 3:48 am

My fear is that Obama will be a retard and hand over blank checks to get these countries (especially China, which is playing the weakling but can CRUSH us economically at any time) to get a “successful” outcome at Copenhagen.

Ron de Haan
December 1, 2009 4:05 am

This is nothing more but “negotiating tactics”.
They will all agree on the proposed 17% CO2 reduction by 2020 if “the price is right”.
The fact that China, India, South Africa and Brazil create a coalition only means that they take Copenhagen serious. That’s a very worrying sign.
We know that China has been pumping 30 billion dollars into some of the poorest African countries in order to “collect” votes. It’s an old trick and one of the reasons why the Japanese are still hunting whales.
It’s also the reason why we should never ever transfer any power to the UN.
They represent the biggest criminal corporation in the world.
theft, fraud, extortion, treason, bribe, racketeering, rape, drug smuggling, human trafficking and human trade are all on the scope of individual UN officials but they never have been prosecuted. This is the MAFIA on steroids.
And they can’t be prosecuted because this elite, just like the EU members enjoy diplomatic immunity.
This means they can hit you, but you can’t hit them back.
However, there will governments and individuals present at Copenhagen who will beat the UN on any level.
China is one of them and if you want to know the name of an individual, don’t look too far.

Bernd Felsche
December 1, 2009 4:24 am

I believe the term that we’re looking for is “rent-seeking”.
With a global emissions trade, the less-wealthy nations would be in for a surprise. Carbon traders have sniffed the tailpipes and smoke stacks; and it’s the scent of new gold. The trickle of wealth that hasn’t shifted from the haves to the have-yachts, will be soaked up by the “necessary” expansion of the UN bureaucracy; imposing a greater dependence of the poor on handouts.
National leaders can’t possibly be so naif as to think that their country would ever benefit tangibly. The simplest conclusion is that they’re selling out to get a lifetime ride on the gravy train.

December 1, 2009 4:28 am

“Isn’t this basically imperialism? The western powers are creating a false fear and telling the developing world they will have to slow down… by what right can they do that?”
Absolutely right on the nail. This is basically what Piers Corbyn (I think) said on a recent interview. His angle is that the whole emissions targets thing is a scam by the developed nations to prevent the developing nations from catching up. These developed countries, he says, may or may not believe in man made climate change, but their thinking is, if we can make some money out of it, why not sign up? According to this viewpoint, these countries will be making a big mistake, because their whole development and growth will be thwarted.
The question at Copenhagen then is, how much money are the West prepared to cough up to buy off the third worlds development ambitions? Seems like some of these countries don’t want to play ball.

December 1, 2009 4:41 am

John Peter:
““Sea levels are likely to rise by about 1.4m (4ft 6in) globally by 2100 as polar ice melts, according to a major review of climate change in Antarctica.”
I first heard this on a news bulletin this morning – on a childrens tv channel. My 7 yr old son asked if it was going to happen. I said no. He then replied that scientists are not wrong. I replied that there are other scientists who disagree. He seemed content with that answer.
I’ve seen more robust scientific arguments cooked up by pub drinkers on a late Friday night:
Hey, Fred, you know, that ozone layer of the Antarctic starting to heal up.
Yeah, I know. I guess that could cause some warming.
You’re right. I bet the IPCC didn’t figure that one.
How much do you reckon then, warming wise?
Oh God! Several degrees at least.
Only several? You’ve gotta figure in the positive feedback loop you know.
Yeah that’s right. I’d go with 10 degrees at least.
And then there’s sea level rise. . .
Oh my God! Metres and metres of it. Got a pen?
I’m writing a paper to send to the BBC.

Bruce Cobb
December 1, 2009 5:03 am

Hey China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, why not save everybody a lot of grief (not to mention the huge “carbon footprint”) and just not go to begin with? Oh, right, the only reason you were going along with the whole AGW fraud was so you could get wagon loads of cash and other freebies from the “rich” nations dumb enough to go along with the scam. Nice try.

Peter B
December 1, 2009 5:06 am

As someone who lived and worked several years in two of those countries (Brazil and South Africa), I would say that such a position on their part is inevitable. First, even those of their poltical and intellectual elites who do buy the AGW “conventional wisdom” are mostly immune from guilt complexes and “we must save the planet” impulses. The idea that, in that case, it’s the most developed nations that must take most of the responsibility, is deeply ingrained – in fact, I would even say that, politically, it’s a position their leaders can’t afford *not* to take – they would risk being called “puppets of imperialism” or such by their political opponents. Second, while it is clear that no country could really afford to meet those targets without destroying its own economy, wealthier nations (or at least their present leaderships) suffer from a “we can do everything” self-delusion – as in, “yes, we can cut our CO2 emissions by 80% in 40 years and still generate green jobs” etc etc. Countries like Brazil and South Africa are much more aware of the fragility of their own economies and that there is no way they could afford going down that path. As for the bulk of their electorate, well, they are more concerned with things like proper water and electricity supply, jobs, etc, etc than with “preventing the planet from getting more than 2C hotter in one hundred years”. So a Kevin Rudd-like stance of making a big issue of going to Copenhagen will simply not work there.

jorge c.
December 1, 2009 5:25 am

jimbo (23:45:46) well said!!!!

December 1, 2009 5:47 am

The whole of the fraud of global warming is becoming a huge wealth transfer charade, quilting the western developed countries with the AGW hoax into paying off the undeveloped countries — Who would in fact be far better off with a few DDT production plants and electrification of their countries.

Al Gore's Holy Ghost
December 1, 2009 6:15 am

The Fed and the Bank of England will simply print lots of fresh money and charge Brits and Americans the interest.

December 1, 2009 6:25 am

NGO Sandbag has developed a target calculator which should help people struggling with the “1990 baseline” to understand what kind of cuts their politicians are actually committing to. For example, if the EU were to cut their emissions by 30% based on 1990 that would equate to just 23.7% compared to 2005. In comparison, because of its recent rapid growth an identical promise from Brazil would require cuts of 84.5% on 2005 levels.

December 1, 2009 6:57 am

It amazes me that there are still people who don’t understand why China and India are doing this – it’s a brilliant strategical move on their part, and guarantees that one way or another their economic goals will be met.
What are their goals? Unfettered economic growth for their large populations, and unlimited access to western markets. Neither country believes in, or cares even the slightest bit about the actual “science” of climate change. To them it is, like everything, all a matter of power politics – especially for China, since that is how they approach *everything*.
So, since China is leading this group, it seems clear that China was the one who put this together. Now, China can cause nearly 1/2 the worlds population to walk out of this conference at the snap of their finger – and they know, as does everyone else, that Copenhagen collapses into ignominious disaster if that happens. Guess what – when push comes to shove, Indonesia, all of South America, Central America and Africa are going to ally with China, not with Europe. They know where their interest lies.
China now owns the rights to edit the final document to its liking, and the conference hasn’t even started yet. No European country will dare stand up to them – who wants to make the argument that Barak will?? You don’t need to be some kind of psychic to know how this final doc is going to read.
And thanks to this alliance, China can now guarantee that it is either what China wants or nothing. China is fine with nothing, Europe is not, which is why China will win.
2300 years ago Sun Tzu wrote that a battle is won long before any of the actual fighting takes place. China’s never forgotten that lesson, and that’s why China has already gained a big victory here.

frederik wisse
December 1, 2009 7:07 am

in fact there is already one head of state in africa acting as the agw clan or the ipcc – un – organisation is proposing : Mugabe of Zimbabwe . Did he receive a penny in return ? Ask him : Are not we all responsible for all of this ? Is not it the dream of any dictator to make others pay for their own stupidity and mistakes ?
From this point of view is it so unreasonable to ask for a commitment from another when you yourself are not willing to give a commitment ? To make others pay for their own stupidity ?
My question : Mr. Obama do you consider yourself to be smart ?

December 1, 2009 7:07 am

And the fiscally conservative Barrack Obama will balk at throwing billions at these nations? /sarc. One must remember the way the left views money. ie; someone else’s. No price is too great when saving the planet!

John Galt
December 1, 2009 7:44 am

I expect China, India and the rest will come aboard as soon as somebody else offers to pay for it. I fully expect that offer to be made, too.

December 1, 2009 7:59 am

Shake hands with Al Gore for only $1,209: click

December 1, 2009 8:06 am

What an interesting logo they chose for Copenhagen: A quiet, spotless sun.
Looks a lot like the sun at this very moment:

December 1, 2009 8:35 am

” Kasmir (23:49:11) : ”
Kill? How? There is not any death penalty in the suggestion I made. Also there are two sides to the equation. The number of tons produced and the efficiency of its use. Mongolia produces 7.9 kilos of CO2 per unit of GDP. The US produces 0.5 kilos per unit of GDP but the US produced 5802.08 metric tons in 2003 while Mongolia produced only 8.25 metric tons. Mongolia’s “tax” would be very low. While their rate would be 10 times out rate, they would pay on only about 1/500 of the amount of emissions.
(Above figures for 2003 and for CO2 generated for energy production only).

December 1, 2009 8:58 am

Opps, I believe those numbers were in thousands of metric tons.

George S.
December 1, 2009 9:24 am

The only good outcome for the free world is that this coalition DOES walk out. Otherwise, the UN will become China’s proxy world ruling body. The US, UK, Australia, Canada, Germany and others will be relegated as the new sources of slave labor. Productivity will plumet. Wealth will shift or simply evaporate. Oh, heck…I’m describing my nightmare scenario.
Hope and change.

December 1, 2009 9:32 am

“Opps, I believe those numbers were in thousands of metric tons.”
Well, your point is clear nonetheless, and it ties in quite well with a brief outline of this history of economic growth. If we take the Mongolia economy as equivalent to the American economy in the nineteenth century, the key point is that contrary to the rantings of Malthusians, a economic growth does NOT lead to a linear increase in weight of goods consumed. What actually happens is that the ratio of weight/gdp gets progressively smaller.
This is because the value added to the raw materials of an iPod, is vastly greater than the value added to the raw materials of a table. This is a good thing. Logically therefore, Americans should be praised, not punished for their behaviour.

December 1, 2009 9:53 am

Sorry if this is OT, but I couldn’t decide the most appropriate thread. I need to point out that Rajendra K Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has been awarded an honorary Doctorate degree from University of East Anglia. Now *there’s* a smoking gun.

Gary Hladik
December 1, 2009 12:04 pm

“Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!”

December 1, 2009 12:23 pm

Tomorrow is December 3rd. With the Senate debate on the CPRS in progress in Australia I’ll point out that Dec 3rd is a significant date for Australians. See here:
Note the beautiful flag flown by the Free Australians who were mad as hell and weren’t going to take it any more.

Matt J.
December 1, 2009 12:27 pm

The irony is that it is China, India and Brazil that are going to be far worse off if we get a 4C temperature rise by 2150. Then it will be war, and they will lose badly.

Power Grab
December 1, 2009 12:52 pm

I haven’t read this thread yet, but methinks they are unwilling to cripple their own future prosperity based on a “promise” of future funds from the UN/Robin Hood entities that are set to be the go-betweens, supposedly shoveling funds from the “rich” west to the rest of the world.
There wouldn’t be any accountability or oversight for those go-betweeners, right?
Right. Now, back to the top.

%d bloggers like this: