Articles by T Jayaraman

By drawing heavily from neoclassical economics, game theory, and rational choice theory, mainstream international relations ends up adopting a managerial approach to the issue of climate change, wherein international politics becomes structurally similar to a market economy in which states are rational, self-interested actors. Consequently, cost–benefit calculations rule out the normative moral arguments for an equitable sharing of future carbon space that do not converge with the material interests of states.

Will the Flower Slip through the Asphalt: Writers Respond to Capitalist Climate Change edited by Vijay Prashad, New Delhi, LeftWord Books, 2017; pp 118, ₹175.

This critical review and comparison of the Gadgil and Kasturirangan panel reports on the Western Ghats highlights various concerns related to their methodology, recommendations, and the manner in which they resolve the contradictions between the imperatives of environmental protection and economic development. It also focuses on basic demographic data on the affected areas in the Western Ghats, statistics on agricultural land use, and occupation data of the affected population in the ecologically sensitive zones, none of which has been considered in the two reports. The paper argues that the constitution of expert panels for the Western Ghats is an attempt to appeal to the principles of scientific certainty for addressing the dual concerns of environment and development. The two reports have an unwitting common ground: while they are alive to environmental concerns, they ignore insights from development theory and practice. The recommendations of both the reports presume that environmental and developmental imperatives can be combined without a political debate.

There are major issues at stake in the Rio+20 Summit on Sustainable Development to be held on 20-22 June. Yet governments of developing countries have not given adequate importance to the run-up to the conference. As has happened in the climate change negotiations, the outcome draft now under negotiation shows a concerted move to rewrite the terms of global environmental governance. There is an attempt to push through the decidedly narrow and environmentally defi ned “green economy” and there are moves to dilute the importance of development for poverty eradication. Backed by an arsenal of research on environmental economics, the North is out to set a policy agenda that the South is fi nding it diffi cult to catch up with.

The US is in Copenhagen with a very strong hand, having succeeded in significantly furthering its basic agenda of refusing to commit itself to a substantial reduction in emissions until the major developing economies are on board. It is also clear that the US remains firmly committed to ensuring that its hegemonic interests are not seriously compromised by the outcome of climate change negotiations. With the climate laggards in tow, and a pliant European Union unwilling to assert its better instincts, there is a serious danger that the US would dominate the endgame at Copenhagen with an outcome that substantially meets its requirements, at the cost of the developing countries. Above all, a US-led outcome would spell an end, at least temporarily, to serious emissions cuts by the developed countries.