International Relations and the Environment

An article in the New York Times reported that last week India’s new environmental minister said the country would not participate in plans to cut emissions before a climate summit next year. This brings to light the issue we discussed in class of whether countries like India and China should be considered developed or developing countries.

Prakash Javadekar, the minister, brought up an argument that we discussed in class. He claims that developed countries such as the United States brought on these high emissions; therefore, it is their responsibility to participate in plans that will cut greenhouse gas emissions. However, I think this argument goes along with the old saying that two wrongs don’t make a right. While the U.S. may have been a major contributor to emissions in the past, that should not give countries like India the right to ignore environmental issues.  Following in the same path as countries like the United States will only lead to more failures in environmental policies.

One of the biggest issues when it comes to global environmental politics is being reactive versus proactive. If India continues to wait to lower their greenhouse gas emissions, it might be too late. The article also mentions that India’s emissions are estimated to double as the country is working to provide electricity to more than 300 million people.  While it makes sense that they may be weary to commit to lowering emissions when the amount of people using electricity is on the rise, they should still be implementing some sort of plan on how they are going to control the rise.  If India is already aware that more people are going to use electricity I do not see why they would not be able to be proactive. Instead they are using other country’s such as the United States past mistakes to justify the ones they are about to make.

China is usually compared to India in situations like these, however according to the article China has shown more interest in implementing more environmental policy along with the United States. Nonetheless, without the compliance of India it will be hard for change to occur. This brings up the issue of international relations as a whole. From a realists’ standpoint, India is only going to look out for what is in its best interest instead of the environment as a whole. 

The article in the Times brings up the argument that the minister makes that India has more pertinent things to worry about than cutting down on its greenhouse gases. Javadekar said India’s first priority would be to eradicate poverty and worry about the country’s economy.  So, in this case when it comes to cutting emissions India would definitely be considered a dragger. Because of the anarchic tendencies of states, it is only natural that India would consider the environment to be secondary to the economy. Nonetheless, I do not see why the two cannot be used together to create solutions.

As we discussed the WTO readings I realized how closely the economy and the environment are connected. Even though this article has nothing to do with trade, it shows how many people such as the leaders of India think a strong economy is needed before they can work on environmental policy. But, I think the two can go hand and hand. Strengthening the economy could mean investing in technology that cuts down on greenhouse gas emissions. Not only would that technology be helpful to India, but also other countries could buy the technology from India to improve their own environmental policies.

Additionally, India is trying to make change in its own way. The minister said they are trying to increase public transportation to decrease the demands for cars. While policies such as these may not be as helpful as working with other countries such as the United States and China, it is a step in the right direction.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/world/asia/25climate.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar&_r=0