On my last couple of days in Cancun, while vestiges of the sense of despondency and low achievement of the initial days remain, Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh's impromptu statement on "binding commitments" and "appropriate legal form" has jerked many pundits -- especially those from the subcontinent -- up.

How does the UNFCCC select its various locations for its annual climate change meets? What I am hinting at is, why Cancun? Why, for that matter, Copenhagen, Poznan or Bali? I have been told that cities vie for the honour, just like a sporting event such as the Olympics or the Asiad, and pay for it.

I have reached Cancun few hours’ back to attend the 16th Conference of Parties (CoP-16) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and have been greeted with news that can only be characterised as bad or worse.

The post-2012 emissions reduction commitments for Annex 1 countries under the Kyoto Protocol (KP) are presently going nowhere. Japan had fired the first salvo when in the opening plenary, it categorically stated its opposition to the second commitment period of KP. Now, countries like Australia, Canada, and some European nations have joined the chorus to disband KP.

One of the eight Missions under India's National Action Plan on Climate Change, the revised National Mission for a Green India (GIM for short) professes responding to climate change by a combination of adaptation and mitigation measures, which would help:

Navi Mumbai airport gets 'green' signal

- Business Line, 23 November 2010