The Delhi High Court on Wednesday allowed Greenpeace India to operate two of its domestic accounts and access its fixed deposits.
The Central Government, however, reiterated what it has told the High Court on Tuesday — that Greenpeace India violated the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act by merging its foreign donations with domestic ones.
Greenpeace India had filed a plea in court against the cancellation of its registration, saying that it was facing an imminent shut-down and it had barely a month to survive with the government recently freezing its accounts, over allegations of foreign funding that were specifically meant to target India’s economic and development interests.
The organisation has also faced a host of other penalties for which they have approached the court in the past.
The government had suspended Greenpeace India’s license for six months, which had barred it from receiving foreign funds. It had also issued a show cause notice to them asking why it should not be shut down permanently.
India has once again reiterated that environmental issues can’t be used as a pretext to prevent poor countries from development, even in the light of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR). CDBR acknowledges the differences in the levels of economic progress between nations, while holding all states blameable for ecological destruction, even if they’re not equally responsible.
Supporting Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar’s opinion about developed countries being historically culpable for the present crisis, Counselor at Permanent Mission of India to United Nations, Amit Narang, said that the poor did not cause the problem, but they are being forced to bear the brunt of it. He was particularly critical of new proposals particularly intended to address climate change and sustainable development instead of poverty eradication.
The issue of who’s to blame for the fragile environmental conditions today has always been hotly debated. Narang insists that CBDR cannot be called upon to curtail development of poorer nations or to forgive richer countries for having exploited nature on their path to development. But he implied rather than accused more powerful states of forcing climate change policies on economically disadvantaged nations.
The bigger challenge is poverty since almost 1.3 billion people are severely underprivileged. So the new agenda at the global climate change convention in fall this year must be focused on the poor and the hungry, and not only be about the environment. At present, there is a lot of pressure on developing states to reduce their carbon emissions by opting for cleaner energy sources instead of cheaper ones such as coal or firewood.
The vision for the UN’s declaration in September should ideally center on halting climate change in its tracks, distribution of wealth instead of poverty and a world in which poorer nations are not coerced into paying for the excesses of developed countries.
