O P I N I O N S

guest column
World not ready to take climate call
Sunita Narain
Time is not on our side,” appealed an emotional delegate from the Philippines as he urged the world to take decisive action to cut emissions. His country has been hit by 17 typhoons in just the last year, which scientists now attribute to the impact of climate change. But his appeal fell on deaf ears, as the 18th Conference of Parties (CoP) to the climate convention concluded its deliberations in Doha over the weekend. The result of the conference was to agree to do little and to agree to talk but not act.

FIFTY FIFTY
Spare the rod to save the child
KISHWAR DESAI
The problem of violence towards children is rarely discussed in this country. We assume that parenting is easy and that everyone can bring up a child, little realising that more often than is widely understood, both adults and children can have psychological problems or be extremely vulnerable to abuse. In the absence of social monitoring and counselling — both for adults as well as children — things are very likely to (literally) get out of hand.

ground zero
Should Indian media be restrained?
raj chengappa
The Indian media not just imparts news but these days also seems to be making news, albeit for the wrong reasons. Naveen Jindal, industrialist and a Member of Parliament, has accused Zee News editors of resorting to blackmail regarding coverage over allegations of improper allocation of coal fields to his company.

guest column
World not ready to take climate call
Sunita Narain

Time is not on our side,” appealed an emotional delegate from the Philippines as he urged the world to take decisive action to cut emissions. His country has been hit by 17 typhoons in just the last year, which scientists now attribute to the impact of climate change. But his appeal fell on deaf ears, as the 18th Conference of Parties (CoP) to the climate convention concluded its deliberations in Doha over the weekend.

A protester outside the UN climate talks venue in Doha on December 7. AFP

The result of the conference was to agree to do little and to agree to talk but not act. This when the world is now sure, more than ever, of the certainty of climate change. Scientists informed the conference of the impending devastation, as oceans begin to warm and extreme weather events like Sandy hit nations across the globe. But even as science is more certain, action it would seem is even more uncertain. Doha is about low ambition and weak outcome.

At Doha, the agenda was threefold. First, to conclude negotiations on the Bali Action Plan — a series of critical decisions needed to combat climate change. Second, to conclude the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, the only legally binding treaty to cut global emissions. And, third, to agree on the programme of work of the new global deal to cut emissions post 2020, which had been agreed at the Durban CoP last year. In other words, the Doha COP was all set to be a critical milestone in the world’s desperate and frantic efforts to contain the impact of climate change.

It is clear that the world needs to take urgent action to contain runaway emissions. The expectation out of Bali was that the industrialised world should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40-45 per cent below the 1990 levels by 2020. At Doha, the world agreed that it would settle on doing practically nothing. The European Union set a target of 20 per cent reduction over the 1990 levels by 2020 — a target it says it has already met, and so signifying its weak intent to do more. The US did not budge from its meaningless target to reduce only 3 per cent below the 1990 levels by 2020. Others like Australia, Canada and Japan dithered and ditched on the commitments already made.

Then there is the issue of finance — needed to pay for mitigation so that developing and emerging countries can make the transition to low carbon technologies and to pay for the increasing cost of adaptation to climate change. At the 2009 Copenhagen CoP, the industrialised world had agreed to generate new and additional fast-track finance totalling to US$30 billion by 2013 and US$100 billion by 2020. That was the deal.

But it was reneged upon. The fast-track finance turned into a sham as everything from private commercial deals to loans was added to total US$33 billion. For instance, the commercial loan given by US EXIM Bank to Indian solar companies, which was conditional to purchases of all equipment from US companies, was included in climate fast-track accounts.

At Doha, poor countries, particularly those most vulnerable to impacts of climate change, demanded that finances were critically and urgently required to cope with climate risks. But their demand was turned down. A few countries put out pledges, but overall the promise of money remained a chimera. The final document only agrees to talk about how and when funds would be generated.

But all this should not surprise us. The fact is that over the past some years, every conference on climate change has seen the same late-night drama — the same beginning and the same ending. At the core of the discussions is the matter of equity — which country will cut emissions and when. The fact is that climate change is about the stock (past) and flow (present) emissions. Certain countries have created the problem through emissions of greenhouse gases, which were essential for economic growth. Now there is limited space in the atmosphere for the emissions of the emerging and developing countries. Will the already rich countries reduce and create space for the rest to grow, or will the emerging countries have to limit their growth. Climate change negotiations are about the sharing of the world’s ecological and economic space.

In Doha, developing countries asserted the need for equity. US deputy negotiator was recorded as stating that he cannot ‘sell’ the idea of equity to his Congress. Clearly, this will be the mother of all battles in the years to come. In 1992, when the climate convention was agreed upon, the industrialised countries contributed over 70 per cent of the emissions and developing countries the rest. Now, emerging and developing countries make up 57 per cent of the annual emissions. In 1992, the agreement was that rich countries would reduce to make space for the rest to grow. That did not happen. Now the world has run out of time and atmospheric space. This is the question that confronts the negotiations under the new framework that will be decided by 2015.

The world is not ready — it would seem — for tough action and even tougher agreements to make space for the needs of all in the world. However, there is no choice but to try and succeed. This is what the extreme weather events teach us.

The writer is director-general of the Centre for Science and Environment

FIFTY FIFTY
Spare the rod to save the child
KISHWAR DESAI

The problem of violence towards children is rarely discussed in this country. We assume that parenting is easy and that everyone can bring up a child, little realising that more often than is widely understood, both adults and children can have psychological problems or be extremely vulnerable to abuse. In the absence of social monitoring and counselling — both for adults as well as children — things are very likely to (literally) get out of hand.

Disciplining children and more importantly controlling the anger of a disgruntled adult are equally tough. It is only because Indian society remains very secretive and closed-minded about family concerns that many crimes taking place at home — from domestic violence to child abuse — are frequently glossed over. Usually, these problems are dismissed as “ghar ki baat” and often neighbours and law agencies assume that families will best resolve their differences, even if it involves physical or mental cruelty.

Any form of violence can scar a child for life.

In the past few decades, we have seen enormous changes taking place all over the world, viz-a-viz laws that protect children even from family members. Unfortunately, most of the recorded child abuse is usually perpetrated by family members, including parents. But despite that, we in India, still lack stringent laws which would protect children from physical violence and torture.

Most of us would remember the horrifying case of Falak, a baby girl, who eventually died after being brutally attacked. But there are many other equally frightening cases that have taken place abroad. Indeed, the whole of UK was shaken up by the case of Baby P (real identity was never revealed), a very young child who had been beaten and burnt by his caregivers. Battered and broken, he died. The social services which were supposed to have been keeping an eye on him were severely reprimanded and resignations followed. Of course this was an extreme case, but cases like these prod a nation into re-examining their laws and possibly change them for the better.

This is precisely what one had hoped would happen after the dreadful case of Falak. That our government would wake up and a proper child protection Act installed and strengthened, so that children at risk could be identified and given swift help. Also, the strictest punishment would be meted out to the perpetrators. But none of that happened. In fact, since there are no social security or welfare networks in India, a child at risk is very likely to simply slip through the cracks and disappear from view, into circumstances which could be worse than hell.

We forget children are our future and that whilst we pride ourselves on being parents if we can provide them with all the required facilities, including a good education, sometimes other things get neglected. An increasingly competitive environment has put huge pressure on both parents and children, and even this can be a trigger for violence. Everyone longs for perfection, but alas, that is only a chimera. We are all basically flawed creatures and it is up to us to ensure that our children do not inherit our fears and our lost dreams.

In the recent case of the Indian couple in Norway, it is difficult not to sympathise with the plight of the child and that of the parents. The worst that can happen to a parent has happened to them. They have been separated from their children and accused of cruelty. Even if the allegations are eventually proven to be untrue, many secrets of their personal and private lives will now come out into the open.

From their case, and others, it is obvious that we, as Indians, can no longer take recourse in the argument of “cultural differences” for using corporal punishment. Moreover, when we live in a foreign country, we will have to learn to abide by the rules abroad. Norway, much like other European countries, takes child rearing extremely seriously.

In all the years I have lived in the UK, I have yet to see a British child being smacked. Rarely does one see them even being yelled at. This might be a shock to those of us who are used to Indian parents using a harsher form of discipline, but psychologically it has been found that any form of violence can scar a child for life.

Common forms of punishment — slapping a child, rapping on knuckles, locking them up in a room — might not be truly violent, but even these can instill fear in a vulnerable mind. Yet in many parts of India, it is still considered fine to even use a stick. Recently disciplinary techniques in schools have also come under the scanner, when children have been humiliated and tortured in every way possible: from being forced to strip to being hit so badly that they have gone blind, or deaf.

For a society that supposedly believes in non-violence, we are probably among the most violent, especially towards those who are more defenseless than us. Perhaps instead of blaming the Oslo courts for upholding their stringent laws and the fact that they have now convicted both V Chandrasekhar and his wife Anupama to over a year each in prison for their treatment of their seven-year-old son Sai Sairam, we should all begin to introspect and suggest that similar laws, now internationally accepted, should be created in India as well.

Perhaps a light has been shone on what might be the least discussed part of our society — violence towards children within the family. Why don’t we look into the mirror and see the reality for what it is?