Mumbai: “I don’t believe in limiting warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius” that R.R. of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in New Delhi. Rashmi says, “Because global emissions continue to rise”.
In 2015, 196 countries pledged to reduce global warming emissions, which would limit average global temperature rise to below 1.5°C. maintains.
RR Rashmi, retired Indian Government work Administrative Service (IAS) officer, he attended the 27th Conference (COP27), Global Climate Conference. He has also been India’s lead negotiator for climate change negotiations under the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) from 2008-13 and 2016-17.
After the COP 27 conference, which ended on November 20, there has been no movement in climate finance and for loss and damage caused by climate change. Financial comfort Even if it is announced, it is important to receive it, says Rashmi He expressed disappointment. Substantial funds will be useful He said.
Further, India Spend According to the articlephase out all fossil fuels with coal In an attempt to reduceCOP27 Failedcountries committed to a gradual reduction at the 26th COP.
How will these developments affect India, especially when its long-term strategy for net zero carbon emissions has emphasized the need for funding? In 2015 to the Paris Agreement RR has been part of climate change policy making in India before and after. We asked Rashmi these questions.
Edited excerpts from the interview:
Loss and damage as part of COP27’s agenda accept Not only that, but the world has now agreed to create a financial facility that will benefit countries most vulnerable to climate change. What was your first reaction?
Politically, this is a good sign. All developing countries, especially small island developing countries, have been struggling with this issue for some time. Finally the developed countries won, so it was a political victory. But 10 years ago Green Climate Fund This is no different than what happened when the (GCF) was set up. Countries have created a fund in UN negotiations to help developing countries finance climate change and mitigation. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) was set up for similar purposes, to finance mitigation and adaptation needs. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) has since disbanded. It did not receive substantial funding or funding.
Not only India’s primary fuel, coal, but also oil and gas used for heating in countries with harsh winters and fossil fuels India’s drive to join the world stage Some vibrations Found it, but it didn’t make it to the finals. Conclusion Your thoughts?
I think it’s a reaction to countries that have been pushing to phase out coal and improve mitigation efforts. If they are really interested in improving ambition and reducing emissions faster, they should phase out not only coal, but other fossil fuel sources as well. However, at this point, with the Europeans moving back to coal and gas and the Middle East being a major oil producer, it is difficult to command traction on such an issue. Hence, consensus is unlikely. The fossil grid is anyway part of the energy transition announced by net-zero countries [கார்பன் உமிழ்வுகள், குறைப்பு அல்லது கார்பன் சேமிப்பு தொழில்நுட்பங்கள் மூலம் பசுமை இல்ல வாயு உமிழ்வை நீக்குவதைக் குறிக்கிறது] Notice
Developing countries like China and India were pointed out to do more. It is my understanding that this motion was made in that context. As such, unless advanced economies rapidly reduce their emissions from fossil fuels, these two countries will not help reduce emissions.
Do you see enough ambition to keep the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C alive? Since the undefined term can be used to justify new fossil fuel development, including natural gas, Low emission energy solutions have added
Due to the influence of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations, we can 1.5 in any environment [டிகிரி செல்சியஸ்] We are going to exceed the limit. As global emissions continue to rise, I am not optimistic about limiting warming to below 1.5°C. Low-emission solutions include green hydrogen, natural gas, nuclear power (and other clean sources). So is natural gas, though it’s problematic in a conservative sense. [இயற்கை வாயு, நிலக்கரியை விட குறைவான மாசுபாடு என்றாலும், புதுப்பிக்கத்தக்க ஆற்றல் மூலங்களைப் போல சுத்தமாக இல்லை] But for a developing country like India, gas or Green hydrogen or gray hydrogen Why should we not be cautious about?. Reducing our emissions from coal requires a mix of energy sources.
Have you seen any positives in climate finance? This time there was no mention of doubling the adaptation fund as mentioned last year.
Doubling adaptation funding, on adaptation A global goal I am disappointed to see the lack of progress on many (finance related) aspects such as (GGA) and the New and Combined Criteria for Finance (NCQGF).
[COP26 இல், உலகளாவிய இலக்கானது தகவமைப்பு திறனை உருவாக்கவும், நெகிழ்ச்சியை வலுப்படுத்தவும் மற்றும் காலநிலை மாற்றத்தின் பாதிப்பைக் குறைக்கவும் நிறுவப்பட்டது. எவ்வாறாயினும், இலக்கில் எதை உள்ளடக்க வேண்டும், அதை எவ்வாறு அளவிட வேண்டும் மற்றும் அறிக்கை செய்ய வேண்டும் என்பதில் நாடுகள் உடன்படவில்லை. நிதிக்கான புதிய மற்றும் கூட்டு அளவுகோல் (NCQGF) என்பது, ஆண்டுக்கு $100 பில்லியன் (ரூ. 8.17 லட்சம் கோடி) முதல், வளரும் நாடுகளின் தேவைகள் மற்றும் முன்னுரிமைகளைக் கருத்தில் கொண்டு புதிய கூட்டு அளவீட்டு காலநிலை நிதி இலக்கை அமைக்கும் முடிவாகும்.]
Among these issues is the fact that no funds are available within the UNFCCC processes, which have many statements of substance and substance. If one must look outside the UNFCCC process for funding, the UNFCCC has no control over the matter. The commitment to providing resources and funding is diluted. Even in the case of the $100 billion promised nearly 12 years ago, the funds still haven’t fully flown in line with the convention’s principles.
Regardless of what happens to the $100 billion, India needs to find funding from all sources to meet its climate goals. Globally, according to COP27, the requirement to meet climate targets is $5-6 trillion ($6 trillion is Rs 490 lakh crore). For India, our additional requirement is $380 billion (Rs 31 lakh crore) by 2030 for renewable energy alone and $17 trillion (Rs 1,389 lakh crore) by 2070 to decarbonise the entire economy. It cannot come from India’s national budget or the $100 billion global fund, as India will get only a limited share of it. Therefore, it must depend on mobilizing resources on this scale from all sources, including the public budget, multilateral development agencies, bilateral aid and, most importantly, international capital markets.
In the lead up to COP27, the G7 group of countries has agreed to sign the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) with some developing countries, including India. negotiation was conducting During the second week of COP27, Indonesia joined the G7 countries at the G20 Summit in Bali. In a $20 billion deal (Rs. 1.6 lakh crore) phased out coal. If something like that happens during India’s G20 presidency year, what does that mean for our transition to renewable energy?
We do not discount the importance of the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP). Above all, [புதைபடிவ எரிபொருட்களிலிருந்து புதுப்பிக்கத்தக்க எரிசக்திக்கு] It is a significant global effort to help countries transition. That’s welcome. The question for India is on what terms these flows will take place; That is, whether they are available in international capital markets or different from bilateral aid.
The importance of the Just Energy Transition Partnership is to bring donors and contributors together on a single platform to promote just transition financing. But we need to look a little deeper to understand the mix of resources: how much of it is grants, concessional loans, or direct credit. How are risks hedged here, which sectors will be invested in, and what are the ‘just’ elements of this financing? It should be seen.
India also undertook climate diplomacy around COP27 through Mission Life or Lifestyle for the Environment. Life by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the presence of UN chief Antonio Guterres in Gujarat in October 2022 (LiFE) was initiated. Philosophy of Life, Sustainable Lifestyle, Sharm el-Sheikh In the implementation plan was added. Please comment on this.
LiFE is included in the Sharm El Sheikh implementation plan in the form of a short paragraph. It recognizes India’s contribution and connectivity to the issue of sustainable lifestyle and consumption. Sustainable consumption should be operationally specified. The only way to achieve that is to reduce the amount of excessive or wasteful consumption. This may take time. But, at least it is recognized in the formal process.
Overall, what are your takeaways from COP27?
It was never a high visibility COP. It was rightly called the COP of Implementation. However, the COP has only partially met expectations. Most implementation-related issues, such as adaptation financing, global targets (GGA) and New and Collaborative Criteria for Financing (NCQGF), and mitigation programs, which involve accelerated emission reductions by developed countries, remain largely unaddressed. A temporary financial arrangement for loss and damage is the only positive outcome. Launched in Glasgow last year [உமிழ்வைக் குறைப்பதற்கான லட்சியத்தை அளவிடுவதற்கான] Mitigation work plan Balancing With the aim, a two-year work plan for just change was launched. In most other cases, COP27 has kept the process alive only as far as the United Arab Emirates.
We welcome your comments. comments respond@indiaspend.org can be sent to We reserve the right to edit them for language and grammar.