@CSEINDIA makes a surprising turn towards cheer-leading for carbon markets in India, moving away from its well-known stance of caution on market-driven approaches. Here is a quick deconstruction of the most problematic aspects of this new turn.... Based on the report: http___cdn.cseindia.org_attachments_0.40552200_1723533649_the-indian-carbon-market-pathway-towards-an-effective-mechanism-report.pdf and a press statement: cseindia.org/cse-recommends-… 1/n

Excellent bold piece that calls out the reality of the constant attempt to impose "ecological" solutions by fiat from above!! In fact, such solutions are not even the balanced scientific judgement that is required in dealing with phenomena with multiple causes and multiple channels of action. Instead one particular discipline, and one particular perspective is allowed to run away with the solution discourse. This paralyzes even well-meaning political leaders and bureaucrats into inaction - who are faced with unimplementable "structural" solutions alongside lack of input and effort on step-by-step processes and actions that would provide tangible relief. Much also depends on the composition of the committees of experts that are appointed. If unbalanced in character, lack of balance is possible in many ways, then unbalanced recommendations are the outcome!! @ramakumarr @KanitkarT @sciencebwoy @krishnamku @gsaipsn @MadhuraFAS @mssrf @doctorsoumya @cabcmssrf @nramind @karuppadanna

Important and timely article -- but there are some key loopholes and the danger of "jumping only halfway across the well." In particular the headline takeaway: "Labelling emissions pathways by single actors using long-term temperature goals (e.g. ‘1.5°C’) is questionable and should be avoided." is especially problematic. The solution -- as we have long argued, the only option, is to continually monitor to what extent individual countries are taking up from, or overdrawing beyond, their fair share of the global carbon budget. Let me explain. 1. @HarryWinkler and Frank Lecoq correctly point out that when individual countries, or , even worse, regions and individual multinationals, unilaterally claim to be "1.5 deg aligned" or "2 deg aligned", such claims are bogus. This is absolutely correct and @KanitkarT and myself also have always said so. 2. What they don't tell us is what the rest of the world is doing. So their claims to be aligned to some temperature goal can only be understood in the light of those assumptions. 3. This is because temperature increase is essentially controlled by cumulative emissions. So any single claim, on whether it is aligned or not to the temperature goal, can only be judged in relation to the share of the global carbon budget that is claimed, and assumptions of how much will be left to the rest. 3. It is not only countries and organisations/institutions but also academic authors and scientists who make use of such temp-aligned language and should know better than to do so!! @KanitkarT and I have also said this, and so has @HarryWinkler I am sure, but now it is put down in print. 4. Not only us, but the entire LMDC fraternity as Governments, has been saying this as well, individually and collectively, though perhaps in different language. Most importantly, they have steadfastly ignored the claims of what developed countries say they are doing. Instead of which they put down what they think developed countries should be doing. And this is exactly on the lines of carrying Harald's arguments logically forward, though not in the same language. 5. So far so good -- but the recommendation that all temperature labelling should be given up is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The danger is that this will carry greater leverage since @HarryWinkler is an acclaimed co-architect of the Global Stocktake process in the actual implementation of its Technical Dialogue. 6. Consider the NDC of the US, where, ridiculously, it claims that its NDC emission reduction target is fair and ambitious because instead of emissions reducing in a straight line till 2050, they actually reduce faster. Now this is laughably absurd a claim, that reducing faster than linear is ambitious and fair. 7. But we need a metric of debunking this claim AND we need a way of saying what they should do. Unfortunately, the paper leaves with no options on both of those necessities. 8. This is particularly dangerous for the second GST, since then we are left with no metric of discerning individual responsibility. Who is to do how much, and what is their fair and equitable share, in the light of the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement, is a question that does have to be answered. And as many genuinely bewildered citizens would ask, are countries doing what they should? 9. For developing countries this is especially unsatisfying given their challenge of getting adequate carbon space for sustainable development. To be told that there is no metric for discerning what the rich should be doing is not helpful. 10. Plus like the unfortunate ruling of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, this will mean a call for all countries to basically "do as much as they can"...And we all know how far that will take us!! 11. What is the solution? As the LMDC fraternity of countries and many others have argued (including @KanitkarT and yours truly), the only way is to monitor what is the share of the global carbon budget that the individual country is taking up. The pathway itself in all its detail is not that important, but it is the cumulative emissions of CO2 that is the true indicator. 12.⁠ ⁠For developed countries, that have universally overdrawn beyond their fair share, it is a matter of the most rapid reduction possible and moving towards increasing negative emissions. Monitoring the progress of this, or charting this progression would be the way of determining whether they are temp aligned to some particular temperature. 13. We all know where @HarryWinkler and Frank Lecoq's argument begins and that is appreciated, but where it ends is less than helpful and a positive danger. I look forward to the authors urgently fixing this problem!! @KevinClimate @n_thanki @chilledasad100 @TasneemEssop @harjeet11 @bforboseman @3rdworldnetwork @moefcc @KanitkarT @sciencebwoy @JMauskar @JRBhatt60 @doreenstabinsky @ysaheb @victormenotti @KarthaSivan @AthanasiouTom @Sreejaiswal