| Title |
Mapping ‘consistency’ in India’s climate change position: Dynamics and dilemmas of science diplomacy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ambio, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13280-014-0609-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Himangana Gupta, Ravinder Kumar Kohli, Amrik Singh Ahluwalia |
| Abstract |
India's position on climate change negotiations is likely to have far reaching implications for the success of global climate cooperation. Since the beginning of negotiations, the principle of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) remained the centerpiece of India's stand. The stand started to evolve at the 15th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at Copenhagen in 2009, when India accepted voluntary commitments to reduce emission intensity. Though India still swears by CBDR, status of the principle in the negotiations has become doubtful after the Durban Climate Conference in 2011 committed all parties to take emission targets. This paper traces major transition points in India's negotiating position over the years and provides a descriptive context of its climate-related concerns. It analyzes the interview responses of 15 top scientists, experts, and negotiators to build upon core areas of climate change issues in India, its future role, and position in negotiations. Interviewees, in general, were in favor of protecting the carbon space for the poor who had very low emissions. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 44 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 16 | 34% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 17 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 January 2015.
All research outputs
#14,793,491
of 22,776,824 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#1,413
of 1,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,741
of 352,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#26
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,776,824 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,624 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,269 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.