The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is the core of the many climate arrangements arrived at so far, including the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and the Bali Plan of Action (2007). The differentiated responsibilities aim to meet the special needs of developing countries for accelerated and equitable economic development.

At Copenhagen, the industrialised countries proposed limiting the rise in mean temperature to 2C above normal. Even this seems to be unattainable in the context of the present rate of emission of greenhouse gases (GHG). Hence, the principle of common but differentiated impact of 2 degrees change in mean temperature is essential for prioritising climate victims. For example, small islands like Tuvalu in the Pacific Ocean, the Maldives, Lakshadweep and the Andaman and Nicobar, as well as Sunderbans in West Bengal, Kuttanad in Kerala and many locations along the coast will face the prospect of submergence.

Floods will become more serious and frequent in the Indo-Ganges plains. Drought induced food and water security will become more acute. South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and the small islands will be the worst victims. In contrast, countries in the northern latitudes will benefit due to longer growing seasons and higher yields. We are now in the midst of a steep rise in the prices of essential commodities, and food items.

2009 has been characterised by both extensive drought and severe floods. The gap between demand and supply is high and the absence of a farmer-centric market system aggravates both food inflation and rural poverty. The task of ensuring food security will be quite formidable in an era of increasing climate risks and diminishing farm productivity. China which was reluctant in Copenhagen to join other developing countries in efforts to restrict the rise in mean temperature to 1 to 1.5 degrees C, has already built strong defences against the adverse impact of climate change. Chinese farmlands are however, mostly irrigated, unlike in India where 60 per cent of the area still remains rain-fed. Food and drinking water are the first among our hierarchical needs. Hence while assessing the common and differentiated impact of a 2 degree rise in temperature, priority should go to agriculture and rural livelihoods.

What are the steps we should take in the fields of both mitigation and adaptation? The largest opportunity in mitigation lies in increasing soil carbon sequestration and for building up soil carbon banks. Increase in soil carbon pool in the root zone by 1 ton C/ha/yr will help to increase food production substantially, since one of the major deficiencies in soil health is low soil organic matter content. There should be a movement for planting a billion "fertiliser trees" which can simultaneously sequester carbon and enhance soil nutrient status.

We can also contribute to the reduction in methane emission in the atmosphere from animal husbandry by spreading biogas plants. A biogas plant and a pond on every farm will make a substantial contribution to both reducing GHG emission and ensuring energy and water security. Similarly the neem-coated urea will help to reduce ammonia volatilisation and thereby, the release of nitrus oxide into the atmosphere.

2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity. We can classify our crops into those which are climate resilient and those which are climate sensitive. Anticipatory analysis and action hold the key to climate risk management. The major components of an Action Plan for achieving a Climate Resilient National Food Security System will be the following: Establish with the help of ISRO, a Village Resource Centre with satellite connection; develop Drought and Food codes; organise Seed and Grain Banks; Train one man and one woman of every Panchayat to become Climate Risk Managers; strengthen coastal defences against a rise in a sea level; establish Agro-Meteorological Station with the help of the Ministry of Earth Sciences; establish a Climate Risk Management Research and Extension Centre in agro-climate sub-zones and organise a Content Consortium for each centre consisting of exports in different fields to provide guidance on alternative cropping patterns.

Integrated coastal zone management procedures involving concurrent attention to both the landward and seaward site of the ocean, and to coastal forestry and agro-forestry as well as capture and culture fisheries, are urgently needed.

About 45,000 people travelled to the UN climate summit in Copenhagen - the vast majority conceived of the need for a few global agreements on climate change. So why did the summit end without one? Key governments do not want a global deal: Until the end of the summit, it appeared that all governments wanted to keep the keys to combating climate change within the UN climate convention.

In Copenhagen everyone talked, but no one really listened. The end of the meeting saw US and BASIC countries hammering out the last minute deal, neglecting others. The chief Danish negotiator Thomas Beker was sacked just weeks before the summit. This destroyed the atmosphere of trust that developing country negotiators had established with Mr Becker. The strategy of the major developing nations provided a reprieve from the danger of the breakdown of global negotiations. But their compromise highlights the dilemma of engaging the United States without allowing it to dictate the global climate agenda.

It is evident that the Copenhagen climate summit has failed to produce an equitable and viable plan to combat global warming that responds to both scientific and moral imperative. Undoubtedly, the success of the United States in forcing the Copenhagen Accord on to the agenda, with the active collusion of several developed countries, constitutes a serious threat to equitable and transparent global environment governance under United Nations' auspices.

Following the personal intervention of President Obama with select leaders, the drafting of the accord, drawn up in a series of closed-door meetings with select participants setting aside the outcomes of earlier negotiations, completely ignored the norms of equality of all nations and transparency that are at the core of the UN process. Nevertheless one of the Copenhagen's most valuable outcomes has been the guarantee of the continuity of UNFCCC negotiations, which will now continue at least for another year, despite the Copenhagen Accord.

The developing countries have thus managed to ensure that the primary agenda of the developed countries in the run-up to Copenhagen, that sought to dilute or erase the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities", has been pushed back to some measure. The attempts to set aside or replace the Kyoto Protocol and alter significantly the terms of the UNFCCC have not succeeded at the formal level, though the Copenhagen Accord itself is likely to be used for fresh attempts in this direction.

Developed nations are only expected to voluntarily declare their emission reduction commitments by 31st January,2010. But the domestic legislative process of the United States may not allow it to make any significant commitment to the emissions reduction at all. The climate science demands more emissions cuts from developed nations to match with scientific truth, whereas the oil and coal lobbies of US refuse to comply with it.

On the other hand, the developing countries have conceded that all their mitigation action will be subject to international consultation and analysis, under clearly defined guidelines that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected. Despite the strident criticism of sections of climate change activists, it is clear that the BASIC Four (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) had little room for manoeuvre at Copenhagen. In retrospect, the only way they could have evaded high-level political negotiations, would have been to reject at the outset itself, the leader-driven process promoted by the Danish Prime Minister on behalf of the US.

But faced with the climate negotiations, and unwilling to risk being held responsible for pre-determining the summit's failure, the four major developing nations, to varying degrees, were clearly willing to explore the Danish proposals. The BASIC Four demonstrated that they recognise their special responsibilities while deflecting potential criticism of standing in the way of drawing United States into global climate action. The summit also exposed the weakness inherent in the developing nations' strategy in uniting BASIC Four with G-77 in climate negotiations. The US, on the other hand, successfully used justified concerns regarding the emissions of the major developing economies, to impose mitigation demands on the entire developed world. Looking beyond Copenhagen, one can anticipate an even thornier path for future negotiations due to short-sighted and parochial domestic problems of the US.  

Even though the Copenhagen Accord is not legally binding, the United States would not only review its implementation by India and China, but also would challenge them if they do not meet the goals set by the agreement. India has rejected this statement by saying that accord did not compromise on the sovereignty of the nation, rather, it enhanced the country's interest. This shows that the confrontation between developing nations and the developed ones are very intense.

The climate summit at Copenhagen is far from being a democratic exercise. But the struggle to prevent the terrible consequences of climate change must continue. The deal done between President Obama and Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, along with India, Brazil and South Africa - tells us a lot about how diplomacy will happen in future. New players are coming into the stage, Russia was absent, The EU was nowhere and the rest had to go along. The future of the planet hinges on the balance of power based on new equation.  Political and legally binding commitments should match with scientific truth about climate change in future.

A difficult period lies ahead as governments have to sign up to making cuts and everyone will be watching to see who does something and who does nothing. Perhaps there was just too much to bite off. It is often the case of international diplomacy that tackling problems salami-style is more effective than trying to digest them all at once. It is true that mega-conferences are very difficult to handle because of the wide diversity of opinion and interest. So many countries were trying to negotiate at too late a stage at Copenhagen and found it very difficult to compromise or commit.

Instead of MRV -measurable, reportable and verifiable - the BASIC nations agreed to allow a provision for "international consultation and analysis" on the mitigation actions. Some countries observe that there is major shift in policy decisions and in this accord, the sovereignty of nations are compromised. Some people think that international consultation and analysis of our mitigation actions is reframing of measures for reporting and verification. Intellectual Property Rights regime on transfer technology was effectively negated in the accord and financial commitment is not clear.

There are indeed many risks, many hazards and many threats when developing countries negotiate with mighty rich nations. Developing countries have to be extraordinarily vigilant and watchful, negotiating tough, but always from position of strength. China and India to some extent have some power to talk from their position of strength to the rich nations headed by mighty United States. UN looks very helpless before US and sometimes works under the direction of US.  

After the disintegration of the USSR, US becomes the unipolar power of the world and is trying to dictate terms. Though China is the first growing super power economically and militarily, but it is still lagging behind compared to US.  Undoubtedly, many developed countries want to see an end to the Kyoto Protocol, but so far, developed countries thwart these attempts for the time being.

Kyoto Protocol wants to punish US and EU for emitting carbon gas for two centuries and in the process became rich nations at the cost of poor countries. But they are not ready to finance and transfer technology to poor nations for mitigation and adaptation programme, nor are they ready for deep emissions cuts. If they follow the Kyoto Protocol, then in the long run, some first growing developing countries will surpass the rich nations and there will a major shift in global power.

However, every country should try unilaterally to draw a road map for low-carbon growth to save the planet from emissions. India has committed itself to cutting its carbon emission intensity by 20-25 per cent by 2020 levels. China who is the No.1 emitter of carbon at present, is trying hard to cut its carbon emission by 40 to 50 per cent.

China has negotiated its domestic action at Copenhagen summit. The BASIC group have emerged a powerful force to face US in their negotiations and their unity was instrumental in ensuring that the Copenhagen Accord was finalised, though, US still holds the upper hand. Environment ministers of the BASIC countries are meeting in March, 2010 in New Delhi to discuss the approach to be taken at the June 2010 Ministerial Conference in Bonn and the 16th meeting of the conference of the parties in Mexico City in December.

The climate conference went into an extra day of discussions in Copenhagen, but failed to adopt a legally binding treaty or commitments, only "taking note " of an agreement cobbled together by US President Barak Obama in discussion with India, China, Brazil and South Africa and several industrialised nations.

After 24 hours of backroom discussions, intense lobbying and high-level diplomacy, the document that emerged was hastily put into the UN records by conference president, after three adjournments of the plenary, when several countries took strong objection to the way the deal had been put together.

Dr. Singh had put his foot down on the question of a legally binding treaty on which the European Union wanted to begin negotiations, because there is already a legal treaty in Kyoto Protocol. However, India and the other three countries (China, South Africa, Brazil) had agreed to reporting and verification issues after China reached a compromise with the US.

The BASIC leaders also refused to allow for their emission cuts to be verified by the international community, as this would impinge on their sovereignty. Copenhagen Accord aims at a 2 degrees Celsius limit to global warming by reducing emissions by 50 per cent by 2050. However, there is no penalty clause for nations who fail to meet their commitments. There is also no deadline for global emissions to peak, which pleases India, but left many scientists, activists and vulnerable countries disappointed.

So, the resulting Copenhagen Accord was protested by several nations that demanded deeper emission cuts by the industrialised world and felt excluded from the major-nation bargaining process. The Indian team is also happy about the focus on equity, but admitted that it had relaxed its position on monitoring and verification of domestic mitigation action.

The Copenhagen Accord arrived at during the climate summit will instantly forgive the industrialised countries' historical responsibility for climate change, eliminate the distinction between developed and developing countries and fatally undermine efforts to renew the Kyoto Protocol. Accusing India of buckling under pressure in Copenhagen, the CSE, in a statement, said the Copenhagen Accord agrees to weak and non-legally binding commitments from the developed world. The Copenhagen Accord agrees to a process which will ultimately kill the Kyoto Protocol and undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It changes the framework of equity and historical emissions. It states that actions by developing countries which are not supported through international finance and technology also be open to international consultation and analysis, which could become a backhand way of bringing in international commitments on these countries.

Greenpeace said global leaders had failed to act to avert a catastrophic change. Mr. Singh and other leaders of BASIC group failed India and the world when they let the US and developed countries off the hook. We have seen a year of crisis, but today at Copenhagen summit, it is clear that the biggest crisis facing humanity is a leadership crisis. The real fact is that rich nations are not ready to hold historical responsibility that they are the real cause for the climate change. They only became rich by emitting gas that spoiled poor countries and they are not ready to sacrifice to save the planet.

Copenhagen Accord also failed to act on one issue many thought was near success here: A plan to protect the world's rain forests, vital to the healthy climate, by paying some 40 poor tropical countries to protect their woodlands. Deforestation for logging, cattle grazing and crops has made Indonesia and Brazil the world's third and fourth biggest carbon emitters, after China and the US. So the already agreed-upon emission cuts fall far short of action needed to avoid potentially dangerous effects of climate change. These cuts are to be made by 2020 ; US, a 17 per cent, China 40 to 45 per cent, India 20 to 25 per cent,EU,30 per cent and Japan, 25 per cent.

Wealthy nations will rise $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poorer nations cope with the effects of climate change, such as droughts and floods. Short-term funding of roughly $30 billion over three years will begin in 2010, to help developing countries adopt to climate change and shift to clean energy.

President Barak Obama has to deal with a political culture where a global deal on carbon emissions is something to fear, not pursue. This time at Copenhagen, he will be required to offer his regrets that, despite the hopes he stirred round the world a year ago, he will not be able to pull out his pen and, at a stroke, sign the deal that saves the planet. Obama is not saviour of the world, he is still a US president and represents the multiple, complex and contradictory interests of the country he now leads.

America did not become a different country by electing Mr Obama. It is still the nation that is at the heart of the climate problem - having contributed an estimated 30 per cent of all the CO2 already in the earth's atmosphere - and therefore of any viable solution. So why is America, which has per capita GHG emissions close to 18 times more than an average Indian, refusing to comply despite having a President who has pledged to change the way the US does business? The quick answer: it just has too many big lobbies that are willing to spend over $300 million a year to ensure that the status quo remains. This includes the coal lobby that has a say in 22 of the 50 states, the oil lobby that George Bush was close to, apart from the automobile and highway lobbies. So even if Obama has pledged to cut GHG emissions by 17 per cent by 2020,he will face great difficulty having it ratified in the Senate.

The US' main argument is that Kyoto Protocol doesn't bring into its ambit two of the world's largest emitters of GHGS - China and India. China is an anomaly as it has now overtaken the US as the largest emitter of GHGS, and given its frenetic economic growth, is first moving out of the developing country orbit.

US cannot tolerate the growth of China in the name of climate change negotiations. The US recalcitrance has spread like a virus to Europe which has also toned down the massive pledges that they had originally made because Europe did not want to lose its competitive edge to its rich rival, the US, by introducing cuts that are certain to result in an increase in the cost of production. Perhaps the single largest blow to climate change negotiations was the economic meltdown and the ongoing recession. Job security has become the number one priority.

With developed nations trying to bring down the unemployment rates, there is no way they were willing to make the big changes in lifestyle or the restructuring of the economy that climate change measures demanded. So in last two years, rich nations have all conspired to stall and defeat the Kyoto Protocol. They engage in political arm-twisting to maintain their capitalist aspiration. They have apprehension that Kyoto Protocol may slowly replace capitalism in favour of socialism.

Forming an umbrella group of rich nations, Australia being the highest per capita emitter of GHGS, had for years refused to join the Kyoto Protocol. Before Copenhagen, Australia had floated a proposal that tried to blur the distinction between developed countries and developing ones when it came to talking on commitments. The Kyoto Protocol recognised that the industrialised countries had historical responsibilities to take on, for having pumped tonnes of GHGS into the atmosphere in the past two centuries. These countries, therefore, not only had to cut their emissions but also pay to help developing countries take on mitigation and adaptation measures.

Meanwhile, developed countries made an effort to break the unity of the G - 77 by offering finance to the more needy ones like Maldives. To stall China and India, who had gained the largest amount from projects under the Clean Development Mechanism, they also said that offsets would now be more for the preservation of forests.  Having failed to brow-bat developing countries into softening their stand, developed countries are now pushing for a proposal that would see a political agreement emerging from Copenhagen. Termed 'Pledge and Review ‘, it is already being viewed by the G - 77 and China as a new ploy to destroy some of the key provisions in the Kyoto Protocol and lay the template for an all new agreement.

If there is failure in Copenhagen to bring about a reasonable agreement, leaders have to face the wrath of people from across the world, especially industrialised countries which are now regarded as the Enemies of the Earth with their selfish and myopic stance. 2012 may be on us sooner than we think.

Stalemate continues at Copenhagen with angry protests in the streets. India and China formed the axis to oppose US and EU Nations, those who try to bypass Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Action Plan. India would not compromise on its three key principles - no legally binding emission cuts, no peaking year and no international review of domestic-funding mitigation actions.

The outcome of the talks must be within the U.N. Framework on Climate Change abide by the Bali Action Plan and Kyoto Protocol. But on Monday (14/12/2009),UK made it clear that the potential agreement at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference would have to go beyond the Kyoto Protocol and that global emissions would peak by 2020. All major countries would have to summit for monitoring and verification of all actions taken to combat the climate change.

On the same day, environmental ministers from emerging economies like Brazil, South Africa, China and India (BASIC) left the scheduled informal ministerial meetings, protesting that the negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol were being ignored and the Africa group threatened to boycott the present proceedings, which may put the whole agreement into back-burner.

Ignoring the Kyoto Protocol in favour of a proposed new Copenhagen accord means that we are going to accept the death of the only one legally binding instrument that exists now. Many rich countries, however, want to merge the Kyoto Protocol into a new deal with emissions reduction obligations for developing countries, as well as developed countries, including the US. It is too soon even to second-guess the outcome of Copenhagen climate summit.

The re-set goal is to produce an 'operationally binding political agreement' on how and under what terms the actions needed to prevent dangerous global warming will be distributed globally, across 192 countries. Copenhagen agreement is a political agreement which should also match with legal and scientific agreements. The hope is that such an arrangement, which needs to be a major advance on the Kyoto Protocol within the parameters set by the UNFCCC, will eventually lead to a fair, just and workable legal instrument.

Unfortunately, the signs and indications from the first few days of Copenhagen have not been auspicious. This agreement at Copenhagen may be a political agreement and not a legally binding agreement in nature. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone. The science is complex and hard to be understood by common people, but the facts on climate change are very clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years.  At the deal's heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world, covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided.

The majority of developing countries continue to push for a legally binding agreement in which the developed nations would lead with drastic emission reductions (25-40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020) and significant efforts to provide financial assistance(well above the $10 billion a year) , coupled with technology transfer to the developing nations.

But the prospects of such an agreement do not seem bright at all. Developed countries have fear that the developing countries like China and India may grow very fast and overtake developed countries. There are however indications that developed nations, instead of reaching across the trust divide, are contemplating the imposition through political arm-twisting, of a solution that safeguards their key interests while overriding developing country concerns.

Faced with an impasse in the negotiations, the developed nations, in a move initiated by the United States, have been working towards an operationally binding political agreement that has the potential to be converted into a legally binding agreement at an unspecified future date. The major developing economies have done well to anticipate such a biased outcome while adopting a forward-looking attitude themselves.

The draft text agreed to by China, Brazil, India, South Africa and other developing nations, gives them reasonably strong negotiated hand. President Obama especially needs to walk his climate talk with new multilateral vision. Whatever the Copenhagen outcome, India's climate policy must do what a country with the world's second largest population needs to do : reorient itself towards a green path of economic growth, in a much more earnest and internally equitable way than the National Action Plan.

As negotiations on climate change gathered momentum at Copenhagen, India has said it will play a constructive role even as it slammed efforts of the developed world to make domestic emission cut commitments of developing nations legally binding and verifiable. India would not agree to the concept of "peaking" a clause incorporated in the first official draft which mandated developing nations to cap their emissions without any mention of a timeframe for that.

Peaking a clause would adversely impact the development of rural electricity in the country already facing a huge backlog in this area. While ruling out any dilution of the previously-stated "red lines" drawn by India, it can play a constructive, facilitative, leadership role to ensure an effective and equitable agreement. European Commission Director-General Karl Falkenberger said that the EU expected India, China and other emerging economies to report on their national mitigation programmes which would be incorporated in an international treaty. "We need them in a legally binding manner from everyone. Differentiated commitments, we can accept, but it has to be verifiable," he said.

The remarks drew objection from India, with senior negotiator Mr. Chandrasekar Dasgupta noting that Mr. Falkenberger's position fell short of climate justice. India and China should not expect any assistance from the industrialised world for undertaking mitigation and adaptation measures in their respective countries. Three years ago the industrialised nations in Port of Spain declared, that they were willing to spend $ 10 billion per annum on developing nations. In Copenhagen the money had shrunk to doling out $10 billion for three years.

India and China will be expected to draw money from the carbon trade, but even on that issue there is no clarity. The present carbon trade has been drawn out in the Kyoto Protocol. But if that will be trashed then there will be no incentive for developing countries. It is only if the carbon trade expands that the industries in the West will look for lower cost options in developing nations. But the carbon trade needs a legal basis from which it can draw its validity. India, Brazil and China want clarification on these issues based on Kyoto Protocol. On the other hand, US-led rich countries criticised a draft climate pact on Saturday (12/12/2009) for not making stronger demands on major developing countries, as environment ministers arrived in Copenhagen to ramp up the level of talks.

Initial reaction to the negotiating text submitted on Friday, underscored the split between the US-led wealthy countries and countries still struggling to overcome poverty and catch up with the modern world. US delegate Jonathan Pershing said the draft failed to address the contentious issues of carbon emissions by emerging economies."The current draft doesn't work in terms of where it is headed," Mr. Pershing said in the plenary, supported by European Union, Japan and Norway.

“All week we have heard a string of excuses from rich northern countries to make adequate reparations for the ecological crisis that they have caused," said Lidy Nacpil, of the Jubilee South Coalition. A new economic model is needed to replace 20th century industrialism, one that can cope with the billions of new consumers, exhausted ecosystems and an unstable climate. It can be done on an equitable basis, keeping in mind the interests of both rich and poor. But rich nations are not in a mood to reduce their emissions significantly, and also they hesitate to provide finance and technology to poor nations, not for charity, but for reparation to nature.

The rich were to deliver legally binding cuts amounting to 25 to 40 per cent of their Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at the 1990 levels by industrialised countries, by 2020.The rich people have to deliver close to $400 billion a year in assistance to developing countries for adaptation measures. The rich were also to deliver a mechanism to ensure free flow of the best clean technology to developing countries.

Kyoto Protocol requires industrialised countries to bring down their emissions to 5 per cent less than the 1990 levels and assist the developing countries. But US has not ratified that the Protocol Copenhagen climate change conference is being held to fix enhanced emissions reduction targets for rich countries during the second commitment period of the Kyoto protocol, which starts from 2012. This is because most countries have not even fulfilled their first commitment period targets.

The 12-day effort to sketch a pact to fight against climate change saw major controversy on Tuesday, over an early Danish draft text. Then on Wednesday, the first cracks appeared within the developing bloc itself, due to divide and rule policy of the western bloc. The pacific island state of Tuvalu - backed by other poor countries most exposed to climate change - called for talks that would lead to emerging giants China, India and Brazil taking on binding emission curbs.

The United States and China, meanwhile, treaded words over blame for the green house-gas crisis. Provision of financial support to developing countries by developed countries cannot be regarded as an act of charity, but must be seen as a legal and historical responsibility. The developed countries are paying for reparation to the nature out of a sense of guilt and not giving charity.

Our planet cries for attention when US and China, two main opposite blocs are fighting for rights. The draft proposal prepared by host nation Denmark for the climate change summit starting on Monday, removes the distinction between developed and developing countries and will be disastrous for India and other developing countries.

Because of this statement, the UN Copenhagen climate talks were disarray on Tuesday, after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that showed that world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all climate change negotiations. The document also sets unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

The agreement prepared by US, UK and Denmark, leaked to the Guardian, is departure from Kyoto Protocol's principle. This document is described as a very dangerous document that may destroy the beautiful world. The figure of our planet - a shining blue and white orb silhouetted against the stars, the swirl of clouds with the blinding white of polar ice caps set against ocean blue - is an image almost every human carries inside as the symbol of our common home. The cryosphere -the regions of our earth covered by snow and ice - has long been considered the "canary in the coal mine" for global warming. We already knew things were bad, but we now know the future of snow and ice on our blue-white planet is actually much worse.

Loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet has increased threefold just in the last decade. Snow cover is decreasing, and land glaciers from the Himalayas to the Alps are disappearing at rapid rates with greatest loss in the Andes and American Northwest. Even mighty Antarctica is showing signs of overall ice loss now as temperature rises. What is needed in Copenhagen are visionary leaders: those willing to look beyond narrow national interest, or issues of blame and compensation, to the threatened future of our fragile planet. We also need an emergency plan for the cryosphere, acting now to preserve as much global ice and snow cover as we possibly can. That means reducing short-lived climate forcers not currently covered under any climate agreement, such as black carbon and ozone, and more focussed attention on short-lived climate gases such as HFCs and methane.

Black carbon contributes as much as 12 per cent to overall global warming; and even more in the cryosphere, where it darkens snow and ice to vastly increase melting. The capacity of oceans to absorb CO2 has been compromised. It fell from 27 per cent to 24 per cent between 2000 and 2007. Ocean acidification rate is accelerating due to carbon emission, and if it continues to go unchecked, many key parts of marine environment - particularly coral reefs, algae and plankton, which are essential for fish, will be severely affected.

The Copenhagen agreement needs both mid-term and long-term goals for 2020, 2030 and 2050. Not hopeful of an agreement on climate change at Copenhagen -the negotiations for which has already started - the group of four emerging economies, Brazil, South Africa, China and India, have set June 2010 as the next date by when a consensus could be arrived at.

The BASIC draft prepared by China to be considered during the high profile negotiations, clearly points out that the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action shall without any delay hold further sessions, in order to complete the work specified in the "present decision" (Copenhagen outcome) and the Bali Action Plan.