On the one hand, the historical fund which is being discussed in the environment meeting. But the bigger question is whether such funds will be able to make up for the losses incurred so far. Or have we accepted that environmental disasters will continue to happen and the rich countries paying for them will end there? Whereas the big question is that when accidents happen, there is not only loss of life and property. Due to this even a country goes back a long way.
These offsets do not absolve us from the objective, which has been a frequent issue of debate at the COP, how we can get back to the 1.5°C global warming that was before the Industrial Revolution. The UN and the European Commission have repeatedly said that perhaps we have lost sight of the purpose for which we have gathered. This thing is also true because no historic major decision could be taken in the last 26 consecutive COP meetings. After so many conferences, if we go to find out whether we have been able to stop carbon emissions, we will probably get frustrated. There is no doubt that such international conferences are important, but in questions related to nature, environment and earth, we assume that everyone should participate in them under the concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, it does not seem so. Often it turns into a debate about how far India is progressing or what a miracle China has done and how much carbon America has emitted. The camps split. The debate goes elsewhere. A common fund comes to the fore to silence everyone. This practice cannot be accepted, because if we look at the damages caused to the ecosystem, we will find that no COP has been successful and it has become a case of conflict of parties.
From the last COP, it is being said continuously that till 2050, do this much of carbon emissions, do that much. Nothing came out of these meetings. Because the biggest thing is the fight for the economy, the environment is just a show. Unfortunately, many developing countries are trying to achieve their share of development to match the developed countries.
Solutions to environmental problems may not emerge from international level conferences to the extent that they can emerge from local management. We should expect less from international conferences.
Don't want to deny It is another matter that they accept that whatever loss is caused, the rich countries should compensate for it. It will neither be justice with nature, nor with the earth; It should be a complete overview that since the COP started, what major decisions were we able to take, so that everything looked better?
In the Paris Agreement, it was decided that the countries of the world would take integrated climate action to control global warming, which is called the 1.5 degree target. If it is accepted that we will achieve the 1.5 degree target in any case, then that will be the biggest decision. Everyone will have to accept the compulsion for this. Because in such conferences there may be talk of the world, but the matter of saving lives remains to be settled. Look at our country itself, how air pollution is increasing in metro cities. A study has shown that children are more affected by this pollution. If this situation continues till 2030, then our temperature will go on increasing continuously. By the end of the 21st century, more than half of the world would have been completely infested. We should also make an observation that what will be the level of water, forest, air, soil in the midst of all these situations and what are they now? The most important point in this is that its solutions may not come out from international level conferences to the extent that they can come out from local management. We can also find 60 to 70 percent solutions to save lives with local measures. Keeping less expectation from international conferences, every country and every state will have to fix all these problems by talking and working at their own level.
