India Wants Compensation for Climate Damages Caused by Rich Nations
By - BhaswatiGuha19
There’s a novel called The Ministry for the Future, where India suffers a horrible heat wave killing millions, and Indian terrorist groups find a way to make the oil executives pay. It’s terrifying because it seems quite possible.
Saving this comment for when I get back into my Goodreads acc
Robinson is a national treasure.
damn.. it does sound very plausible actually
It's literally what the climate models are predicting. Parts of India are at high risk due to 3 facts:
* Already hot and humid climate
* Dense population
* Areas that will get much hotter and experience extreme heat due to climate change
Millions of extreme heatwave casualties are completely plausible for 2-3C climate change scenarios. Not all at once but over the course of several years.
I hate this with all my being
Yes, it's a completely preventable catastrophe. A tragedy played out on an international scale.
they don’t tell you about the boring, simple kinds of catastrophes when the media discusses the seriousness of climate change. all methane bombs and ancient viruses, never once read the term “Rossby wave” in a lay article. Even though that’s the thing that’s going to threaten simultaneous harvest failure
Highly recommend the book, I listened to it on audio, but much of it is available on YouTube
thank you! i will start tonight
I was looking up Andreas Malm's book and upon some talks heard of this book as well. Looked it up but haven't actually gotten around to reading anything about it yet. That definitely sounds interesting and I might give it a go sometime next week
We can't make few rich people pay taxes properly and they expect whole countries to pay up?
those rich people will get a nice kick back from modi
Expecting all countries to meet their full commitments would be a mistake, yes. But this is a place to start at least. We don’t pay those ‘few rich people’ to look after our safety. But we do pay the government organizations that run our country and are going to be attending these talks to look after our safety.
Nice, bargaining chip. Won't work, sadly. The historical damage would be too great a cost to be paid back in a hundred years. And as IPCC states, we have 9 years left to turn it all around.
So, this is a delaying tactic, that will only help the corporatist elite, in the short-run. In the long run, .......well, too bad.
I agree completely. Everyone will be pointing and blaming and demanding other people do something until there's nothing but violence
This seems like a distraction from the more important question of how and when India's coal power plants are eventually replaced
I'm going to float a far-out thought experiment here. Please bear with me.
India has nuclear weapons. India is going to suffer more from climate change than almost any other big country. This is due to the combination of geography, economics (developing nation), and dense population.
Is there a point at which the casualties in India from a limited nuclear war would be lesser than the casualties caused by climate change? At that point, mutually assured destruction breaks down. If they reach that point, what will stop India from using its nuclear arsenal to demand climate action (or attack the US and China who play the largest role in causing it)?
I don't think it's going to happen, but it bears some consideration. People underestimate geopolitical risks from the game of chicken the US and China are playing with climate change.
Your scenario is needlessly complex
The real question is; at what point do the most seriously imperiled states decide to unilaterally go ahead with atmospheric geoengineering? How many must die before a nation or group of nations decide to simply pump sulfates or lime into the sky?
My scenario is perhaps more cynically informed by human nature. If geoengineering proves viable without consequences nearly as bad as climate change, I imagine we'll do it though.
I’m saying, like, why would a nation not go ahead and deploy geoengineering if it was already at a state where nuclear weapons are on the table?
I agree with that as well
Context: this report on the costs of climate change in India.
> Economic modelling offers tentative estimates of the costs of some climate hazards to the Indian
economy over the next century. **At the lower end of the spectrum, Kahn et al. (2019) predict that
climate change could reduce India’s GDP by around 2.6% by 2100 even if the global temperature
increase is held below 2°C; however, this rises by up to 13.4% in a 4°C scenario**. These results are
narrowly based on projections of temperature and precipitation changes, and the effect on labour
productivity in different sectors. Climate change may also affect labour productivity through
additional channels, for instance by increased incidence of endemic vector-borne diseases such as
malaria, dengue, chikungunya, filariasis, Japanese encephalitis and visceral leishmaniasis (Dhiman
et al., 2010).
> Kompas et al. (2018) looked at some of the other channels through which climate change may
slow economic development in India. Focusing on declining agricultural productivity, sea-level rise
and health expenditure, **they find that 1°C of global warming would cost India 3% of GDP a year; at
3°C, that cost rises to 10% a year**. In an analysis examining the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna and
Mahanadi deltas, Cazcarro et al. (2018) estimated that over 60% of cropland and pastureland in
these regions is devoted to satisfying demand from elsewhere, thereby sustaining transportation,
trade and services sectors as well as agriculture. **Thus, the complete climate change-induced
disappearance of this activity would entail local economic losses ranging from 18–32% of GDP**.
> Nixon (2020) takes a different approach, examining the historical relationship between
temperature and GDP. This methodology was developed by Burke et al. (2015), though Nixon’s analysis draws on more recent data. **He finds that India’s GDP would currently be around 25% higher were it not for the current costs of global warming, and predicts that, with 3°C of warming, it will be 90% lower in 2100 than it would have been without climate change**. This alarming
number may better capture the many impacts of climate change than other models, including both direct effects (such as declining agricultural productivity, water scarcity and a rising incidence of vector-borne disease) and indirect effects (such as inflationary pressures, transition risks and productivity shocks).
> The immense costs of climate change (Figure 1) will not be borne equally within India. Climate
change impacts will be mediated by socioeconomic norms and trends, including urbanisation
and industrialisation (Adve, 2019). Income and wealth levels, gender relations and caste dynamics
will likely intersect with climate change to perpetuate and exacerbate inequalities. For example,
Skoufias et al. (2011) suggest that the combination of rising cereal prices, declining wages in the
agricultural sector and the slower rate of economic growth attributable to climate change **could
increase India’s national poverty rate by 3.5% in 2040 compared to a zero-warming scenario; this
equates to around 50 million more poor people than there otherwise would have been in that
year**. Strikingly, while both the urban and rural poor will suffer from higher cereal prices, rural
landholders will not experience significant income changes, as higher cereal prices offset declining
agricultural productivity (Jacoby et al., 2011).
> Neither of these studies accounts for bigger climate risks with greater uncertainties, or
which have been outside the bounds of human experience so far (DeFries et al., 2019). These
can devastate entire cities and regions. **For example, flooding in India over the last decade
caused $3 billion of economic damage – about 10% of global economic losses from flooding**
(Roxy et al., 2017). Cyclone Amphan in 2020 affected 13 million people and caused over $13 billion
in damage after it made landfall in West Bengal (Nagchoudhary and Paul, 2020). Low-income
households lose much more (relative to their wealth) than higher-income households during
such disasters, making it difficult for them to accumulate assets that can enhance their security.
I can't fit the entire document in a comment, so you'll have to read it yourself for more.
Haha.... India is one of the biggest polluters in the world.
You speak truth. The US is the biggest polluter and exploiter of the poor on this planet. We are 90% responsible for climate change. We’re kind of terrible.
I agree. Many people in the US punch down on their own poor, too. We don’t take care of our own very well, let alone people from other countries we have exploited.
It’s great that the US gives a lot of money and medical resources to other countries when disasters hit, etc., but we wouldn’t need to do that as much if we hadn’t so grossly contributed to global pollution, climate change, and government destabilization.
I'm glad you love China so much because China is the only country that is actively fighting against the worlds efforts to stop climate change. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/08/china-orders-coalmines-to-raise-production-to-address-power-crunch
Not the only. Australia also.
Pure bullshit. China is literally leading the way in renewable energies
[World’s largest solar plant goes online in China]( https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/10/01/worlds-largest-solar-plant-goes-online-in-china/)
[Three Gorges Dam: The World's Largest Hydroelectric Plant](https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/three-gorges-dam-worlds-largest-hydroelectric-plant?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects)
[ China leads world's biggest increase in wind power capacity](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/10/china-leads-world-increase-wind-power-capacity-windfarms)
[How China Became The World's Largest Electric Vehicle Market](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-became-worlds-largest-electric-193843992.html)
[China’s carbon-neutral goal: Sinopec geothermal joint venture expects 25 per cent growth annually over five years as clean heating demand rises](https://www.scmp.com/business/article/3147433/chinas-carbon-neutral-goal-sinopec-geothermal-joint-venture-expects-25)
[China Is Bankrolling Green Energy Projects Around the World](https://time.com/5714267/china-green-energy/)
No they just have interment camps were they harvest people organs, or just kill them outright. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_internment_camps
Funny how you’re talking about blame and having humanity, and then you go and blame and dehumanise entire nations of people (many of whom want a fairer world, but don’t have the means to achieve it and just have to kowtow to the demands of the more powerful - the same as wherever you’re from presumably).
You decided to say all this from someone stating a complete fact. India is one of the biggest polluters in the world. 30% of the worlds cows produces a ton of methane which actually retains more heat than carbon.
I don’t know where you got this whole blame the poor BS from. I’m here and we don’t blame the poor for our problems nearly as much as we blame our leaders. I’m literally trying to think of a global problem in which my country blames the poor for.
India, with all of their vehicles and smog, want compensation for climate damages?
Here's an interesting stat:
USA produced 11million cars in 2019 compared to India's 4.5 million.
USA currently has a total 287milliom cars on road, compared to 60million in India.
The specs of an average vehicle are also different, india using less CC vehicles (making them more fuel efficient in general).
Similar proportions for industrial pollutants, plastic waste (in India atleast we don't have peeled oranges packed in plastic boxes), not to mention the humungous carbon emmisions from meat production in the US, contrasting to India where nonveg is still a luxury (maybe one meal of meat/chicken in a week), plus roughly 35% being pure vegetarians.
Not speaking specifically about USA, the same comparison can be done with other developed nations. Despite 4-10x population compared to any developed nation, India's per capita carbon emmission is at the lower end; 1.9 tonnes per capita, compared to USA's 15.52 and world average of 4.79.
So yeah, not the worst idea really.
Ummm they are one of the biggest polluters and their politicians have done little to nothing to stop this pollution.
Lol all day long at that.
Hey India, taken a look at your current contribution to the climate crisis? Or you operating on a "they did it so we are to too" approach.
My children often use that excuse too. Two wrongs don't make a right comes to mind.
India is doing fairly well by investing in green energy for developing nation with such low income levels.
They of course can't be expected to invest the same level as developed nations
True, tbh India and China's efforts might be the most impactful in fighting the climate crisis.
Posted a few stats in another comment here
China also spends more than the next three countries combined on green energy projects and research. But they also built 41 coal fired powerplants in 2019.
I understand what you are saying but remember India has expensive projects like an active space programme and a nuclear arsenal to maintain. It's not like they don't have the funds.
I do agree there needs to be proportionate contribution to developing countries so they can grow in a green manner. But India is not exactly poor, comparatively, they just don't divert enough of there wealth to lifting their population out of poverty. Space programmes seem to take more importance.
Stuff like space programmes improve the economy, creating jobs and opening perspective of foreign investments.
Without new industries like space, defence, IT, manufacturing Indian economy might as well be stagnant and government stay dirt poor.
India needs to and has a right to develop at a faster rate because millions of people in India deserve a standard of living that comes with being a developed nation.
India has increased a lot of industrial and residential electricity coverage past decade, needing a LOT of extra demand, its hard and sometimes expensive to shift it entirely to green. some conventional
lmao Indian solar is some of the [cheapest electricity on the planet ](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/06/india-is-now-producing-the-world-s-cheapest-solar-power/)
the persistence of coal is a matter of politics
Solar is rising but coal is present because.
1) solar isn't something a country can depend on 24/7, you need a stable backup source.
2) India imports a LARGE part of its battery materials, heavy reliance on solar will increase demand making it much more expensive and harmful economically than even coal.
3) Coal industry still has a lot of jobs associated to it and a lot of smaller areas are running on coal since decades. These are the kind of areas that aren't focused enough for new investments(like solar or even a new coal plant). So the transition is slow.
Completely agree to most of that. My main point of complaint is the fact that they want some kind of compensation. Yes it's their right to build space programmes, defence and industry but they pollute and that's fact must be accepted as their contribution to the climate crisis and requirement to assist developing nations. I also agree their contribution should be less as they have many internal poverty/pollution issues to deal with.
On the other hand, Pacific islands and other nations with little to no heavy polluting industries and a minute contribution to overall global emissions should be entitled to compensation. They now have to build flood defences or possibly relocate altogether at no fault of their own. I guess that's my gripe.
In short. India pollutes so why should they be entitled to compensation or financial assistance. Many small nation's don't and never have polluted on large scales, yet have to pay for the consequences.
>Pacific islands and other nations with little to no heavy polluting industries and a minute contribution to overall global emissions should be entitled to compensation.
>India pollutes so why should they be entitled to compensation or financial assistance
India should be compensated too to help them progress in a greener way, developed countries have the resources, they have used countries like India and China for all their dirty work(shipping garbage, settings up polluting industries etc).
Lol one of the most over populated and massive polluting countries
Why the down votes? Over populated, yes. 1.3 billion people; 423 people per square km. They may use less energy then other countries, but most of their energy production is carbon based (I.e.: burning coal, oil, natural gas), very dirty, older tech. Not to mention the private use of gas or diesel generators; in some areas almost every building has one or more. These generators have literally no emissions controls. Let’s not forget the vehicles that have little or no emissions standards. (Remember when India went into lock down and everyone stopped driving? The air cleared and people could see the mountains for the first time in a generation,)
People are downvoting you because you sound like you have no idea of what you're talking about, so there is little point in arguing with you. But I'll leave this here: look at this graph of population vs total emissions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#/media/File%3A2018_Worldwide_CO2_Emissions_(by_region%2C_per_capita)%2C_variwide_chart.png and tell us all again why you think that India is a worse CO2 emitter (total or per capita) than the US.
I am not saying the rest of the world isn’t crap, but before you start yelling at your neighbours clean up your own yard first!
If everyone lived like the Indians, the world would emit 40% (the 2050 target) of the CO2 it emits now: they eat much less meat https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/08/eight-in-ten-indians-limit-meat-in-their-diets-and-four-in-ten-consider-themselves-vegetarian/ they own 40x less cars per capita than e.g. americans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita they fly less. You will say that this is because a large fraction of the country is poor and I would agree with you that I'd rather have fewer but better educated people with more agency, but that does not exclude these Indian habits will have to be adopted in the rest of the world, rather than them adopting a car culture, a meat-heavy, consumerist culture.
I’m use to getting downvotes for saying things that are true lol but yes it is one of the most over populated countries and it’s continuing to grow rapidly. Yes they passed the birth law but they are not China. They will not enforce it the same way. As a result, more people will inevitably equal more pollution. Is India a rich country? That’s debatable. It’s definitely a developing country with lots of potential. But let’s not take a page from the past and continue the past hundred years, instead let’s move with more green energy to start and be more socially conscious.
The potential for solar, tidal and geothermal are off the charts! India could be carbon free by 2050.
I just heard on the radio that Indian scientist believe that burning coal is good for the environment.
Just as China vows to increase the use of coal productions in spite of the rest of the world... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/08/china-orders-coalmines-to-raise-production-to-address-power-crunch
If the choice is between dying equal and living unequal. I'll prefer the former.