How climate justice was buried in Paris

Welcome to yet another climate deal signed by 195 countries, drafted by the developed countries for the developed countries. US President Barack Obama hailed the climate deal as "the best chance we've had to save the one planet we've got. I believe this moment can be a turning point for the world... we can be more confident the earth will be in better shape."

It was soaring rhetoric by a major politician, but the developing countries were categorically told that they "had to take it or leave it". Given the developed countries' hardline position, the developing countries had little choice.

In order to avoid obligatory emission reduction for rich nations, the term "shall" that would have made obligatory emission reduction binding, was replaced by "should" which would make it non-obligatory. Just for this change the developed countries held up the climate deal for several hours. The developing countries including India blinked and the developed countries had their way, as in the earlier climate deals.

As Sunita Narain, director-general of the reputed Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), pointed out, many details were left out, and for the future of the developing countries, India will have to fight over the next ten years. A major detail was the phrase "historical responsibility" and the developed nations had to act owing to their past omissions. As Narain stressed, "Without historical responsibility, equity can now be interpreted only through the words 'respective capabilities...'"

That is, the rich nations would be exempt from their "historical responsibilities" for past emissions, and instead, their contributions would depend on "respective capabilities", which they themselves would decide. Yet another takeaway by the rich nations at the cost of developing countries. Though India got some victories because of the CSE, a series of progressive statements were not included in the operational parts of the text, and therefore are non-binding. For example, terms and phrases like "equity", "common but differentiated responsibilities", "climate justice", and "sustained development and consumption" were included, but these are not operative.

Thus the CSE concluded, "The climate change agreement is weak and unambitious and has discharged the developed nations from their responsibility." The prestigious Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) categorically stated, "The Paris pact falls well short of what the world needs to halt progression of climate change." But Indian Prime Minister Modi, forced to make a deal by the developed countries, stated as briefed by his team, "Outcome of Paris agreement has no winners or losers. Climate justice has won." Tragically, climate justice and the developing countries lost, like they did last time, and will continue to do so until the global south is better organised, and rejects the developed countries pressure and blandishments.