Reflections on Cancún Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

At 4.30 am on the morning of December 11, 2010, the participants at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) broke into a long applause and by acclamation ratified what has become known as the Cancun Agreement.  Bolivia held out to the end and refused to ratify the agreement.  Two of his close allies, Cuba and Venezuela did ratify the agreement.

No one in the hall was claiming that the Cancun Agreement was a historic moment in effectively dealing with climate change. Even those most favourably disposed to the 147 paragraphs in the Cancun Agreement, did not claim that it offers any ground breaking ways of dealing with climate change and its effects. In fact, many intractable problems were kicked to touch or just fudged.  But there was genuine relief that the multilateral negotiating process within in the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC ) actually did finally succeed.  If the Cancun Conference had been as frustrating an experience for developing countries as the Conference in Copenhagen was in December 2009, multilateralism may not have survived.

One of the reasons why it did succeed was due to the patient, professional diplomatic work of the Mexican government during 2010 and, especially, the skillful handling of the negotiations by the Mexican Foreign, Minister Patricia Espinosa. During the midnight plenary on December 10, 2010, the Zambian negotiator spoke for almost everyone in the room when he addressed the chair, Minister Spinoza and said, “thank you for lifting our spirits from the depression of Copenhagen, you have restored our trust in multilateralism.”   There was also praise for Luis Alfonso d’Alba, who was the chief negotiator for Mexico. The modest success at Cancun has ensured that the UNFCCC will be the primary home for climate decisions, and not organizations such as the World Bank or G20 which is favoured by a number of rich countries.

What gains were made at Cancun? The U.S. was happy that there was some progress on measuring, reporting and verifying methodologies (MRV). This means that domestic climate change efforts which might otherwise be unsubstantiated can now be registered, monitored and verified. The developing countries and China had earlier set their faces against any such monitoring and verification,

Developing countries were happy with the decision to set up a Green Climate Fund. This money will be used for climate mitigation and adaptation programmes in developing countries. According to paragraph 16, this fund is “accountable to and functions under the guidance of the Conference of the Parties (COP).”  For the next three years, the World Bank will be the interim trustee of this bank.  This particular bone of contention has been around for years. The U.S. and other rich countries want any financial entity tasked with addressing climate change be located at the World Bank, where it has considerable control.  At least, so this argument goes, there will be less corruption in disbursing the money. Most Developing countries, on the other hand, have had a long, negative experience of working with the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) during the Third World Debt crisis in the 1980s, 1990s and right up to the present. Many participants from poor counties saw these multilateral lending agencies as merely debt collectors for northern banks and northern governments. Developing countries want the Green Fund to be under the control of the Conference of the Parties (COP), where they have greater representation. It is hoped that €100 billion will be available annually for the Fund by 2020. Much of this money will come from carbon levies of utilities, energy-intensive industries and the aviation and shipping industries.

There were other gains in Cancun on what is called REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation), Under this initiative countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia, Zaire and other developing countries which have  forests can receive aid for keeping their forests intact, so that they act as carbon sinks. Anyone who has been involved in issues surrounding tropical forests knows how difficult it is to monitor projects.  This was my own experience during my years in Mindanao.  For a number of years I have been encouraging Catholic Development agencies to get involved with REDD projects.  Such projects could deliver significant economic benefits to poor people who live in the vicinity of tropical forests. By securing the forest they could have a constant stream of income based on sustainable forest products and also ensure the protection of biodiversity.  But, of course, these Development Agencies which in the past have specialized in areas such as education, health care and livelihood projects would need to develop a competence in this area. This should not be difficult as there is quite a bit of money there for capacity building. REDD also leaves the door open for big business to get involved in using forestry project in the carbon offsetting market. Many community groups would be opposed to this development.

There was also some movement on clean technologies. According to Michael Jacobs writing in The Guardian, “ After Cancún the global race to produce clean technologies is back on. Business and investor confidence (in these technologies) has a chance of being restored.”[1]

Before the Conference began, Japan stated that they would not sign up to a second Kyoto commitment. They were joined by Russia, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. During the first week this demand seemed almost poised to wreck the negotiations. The reason for Japan’s jaundiced view of Kyoto, is that it commits the signatories to making binding cuts, where other countries such as the U.S. are only making voluntary cuts. Developing countries see the binding commitments under the Kyoto Protocol (KP) as a good example of the “common but differentiated” approach to climate change and cutting greenhouses gases. Developing countries point to the fact that the prosperity which rich countries have enjoyed for more than 100 years, is directly related to their use of fossil fuels. Enormous pressure came on Japan during Cancun. It is reported that many world leaders telephoned the Japanese Prime Minister , Naoto Kan, in order to get Japan to soften its position on KP.  The issue was fudged rather than solved at Cancun. It is still part of the negotiations, and developing countries are now more confident that richer nations will support the second commitment period. Professor John Sweeney of National University of Ireland (NUI) Maynooth points out that an over concentration on the Kyoto Protocol would miss the point that “only 25% of global greenhouse  gas (GHG) emissions come from countries within the KP.”

With all the various sub plots it is easy to forget that the whole point of these negotiations is to reduce GHG and thus forestall very disruptive climate changes.  In the run up to the Cancun Conference, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) had carried out a study called, The Emissions Gap Report. This made it crystal clear that, when one added the voluntary pledges under the Copenhagen Accord and the reductions under the Kyoto Protocol, there was a gap of 5 gigatonnes of GHG in the atmosphere if the stated goal was to reduce GHG emissions so that the average global temperature would not rise above 2 ^o C.  Many scientists are now saying that even a 2 ^o C rise would lead to disruptive climate changes and that we should be aiming instead for 1.5 ^o C.  This would mean reducing the parts per million of GHG in the atmosphere to 350ppm.  Currently, it is 389ppm and rising at about 2ppm every year.  Given this new scientific knowledge,  it is imperative that much higher mitigation targets need to be made before the next Conference of the Parties (COP 17) in Durban, South Africa next December.

Not everyone shared the euphoria in the room on December 11, 2010.  Meena Raman of the Third World Network was depressed by the outcome of the Cancun Conference. She claimed that the Kyoto Protocol was being eroded away and that rich countries made greater gains at Cancun than poorer countries.    Others may not be as pessimistic as Raman, but they realize that a lot of the hard decisions have been kicked down the road to Durban. A lot of hard work will need to be done during 2011, if a far, ambitious and legally binding agreement is going to emerge from Durban in December 2011.

One  final reflection touches on the fickleness of the media.  In the run-up to the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December 2009, there was enormous coverage of climate change and what need to be done at the Copenhagen meeting.  At the Conference itself there was hundreds of television crews, print journalists and radio commentators. It was billed as a conference to save the world and the media was going to  play a crucial role in educating people about the issues involved.  Fast forward one year to Cancún in Mexico very few media people attended the conference.  Even newspapers such as the New York Times did not carry a story from Cancun everyday during the Cancún Conference.  In Ireland, Frank McDonald from The Irish Times attended and wrote a daily column, but the other  papers did not cover the issue comprehensively.  Radio Televis Eireann (RTE) sent no one to Mexico and therefore it got little enough coverage on radio or television, most of  which was dominated by the dire economic situation in which Ireland finds itself with the €85 bill bail out from the IMF and the EU.

And it was not because scientists are saying that the situation is not as serious as we thought last year. In fact, the scientific consensus has been in the opposite direction.  But its seems it wasn’t a sexy news story and the media did not turn up.

---

[1] Michael Jacobs, “Why Cancun gives us hope,” The Guardian, December 15, 2010, page 32.

The Plunderers are Poised to Win Fr. Sean McDonagh, SSC

The old cliché says that a week is a long time in politics. It is also a long time in environment circles.

Last week I wrote about the success of the Brazilian government in reducing Amazon deforestation, from over 27,000 km² in 2004 to below 6,500 km² in 2010.  This was a huge victory when one recalls the media coverage of the annual burning of the Amazon rainforest in the 1980s and 1990s to clear land for cattle ranching and agri-business.  For example, between May 2002 and May 2003, Brazil lost more than 24,000 square kilometres of forest – an area larger than Israel. People from around the world felt so helpless as they watched those massive forest fires on T.V each year. That is why there was such rejoicing when people learned  that Brazil had cut its deforestation so dramatically..

I did add a proviso last week. I  wrote that: The forces that killed Sister Dorothy Stang and Chico Mendes and hundreds of others like them are still active in Brazil.  At this moment there is a major struggle under way in the Brazilian Congress with loggers and ranchers doing everything possible to oppose the Forest Code which has contributed some much to reducing deforestation.

 

It now appears that the Brazilian House of Representatives is about to approve a new forest code that will role back all those gains and open up a much larger area  of the Brazilian forest to exploiters. The bill which is supported by 370 out of a total 513 lawmakers, provides amnesty to those who been involved in illegal deforestation and degradation. It reduces the preservation areas along rivers and eliminates the need for legal reserves for rural properties of a certain size.

 

A study coordinated by a group of respected CSO environment organizations in Brazil, including Fundacao Boticario, WWF-Brazil, TNC-Brazil, IMAZON and Conservation International, shows that two of the many changes in the proposed forest code will dramatically increase Brazil’s total national emissions as well as reduce its carbon storage capacity. So in the international environment community within the space of one week Brazil has moved from being a beacon of hope to other countries on how to reduce deforestation, to a country that is pandering to vested interests against the well being of people and the forest.  These same environmental organizations claim that, there was very little consultation with the scientific community in drawing up the legislation. WWF-Brazil has opposed the bill from the very beginning. It claims that the bill will completely undermine important requirements for environmental and sustainable production reserves on private land. These reserves and other components of the Forest Law are a major reason why Amazon was spared so much in the past few years.

According to the WWF Report WWF reports,  ”If the amendments are signed into law, effective control of deforestation will pass from strong Federal legislative control to a piecemeal state by state approach. Under this scenario, a strong upsurge in deforestation is expected, raising the spectre of ‘the Amazon is burning’ which became a celebrated cause internationally and helped form the basis of a structure of international environmental conventions and institutions.”[1]

Brazil is a land of great beauty and unsurpassed biological diversity. For this reason, deforestation in the Amazon is especially troubling. While environmental losses and degradation of the rainforests have yet to reach the point of collapse, the continuing disappearance of pristine forests and loss of its species is deeply troubling. Biodiversity is crucial to the survival of all life here on planet earth. The destruction of the Amazon Rainforest, which is the greatest centre of biodiversity on planet Earth is a loss, not just for Brazil, but for the entire Earth. If humans continue to push other species over the precipice of extinction, we too many follow since we depend on other species for our food, medicine, clothing and multiple other needs.

Biodiversity will recover after humanity is gone, but in the meantime, the continuing loss of our fellow species will make Earth a less beautiful and fruitful place.

Scientists who have studied other extinction moments, such as the mass extinction at the end of the Mesozoic (Middle Life Period) estimate that it takes at least 5 million years to restore biodiversity to the level equal to that prior to the extinction event. Actions taken today will determine whether Earth will be biologically impoverished for all the creatures which will live here in the future.

This is this why opposing this new legislation is so important. When all the greedy, cattle ranchers, soya agribusiness and loggers have vanished from the face of the earth – their legacy of pain, destruction and death will unfortunately remain..

 

 

 

---

[1] http://ecopolitology.org/2010/06/29/amazon-rainforest-faces-new-threat-from-brazilian-lawmakers/ downloaded on December 8th 2010.

Eureka Moments at COPs Fr. Seán McDonagh SSC

Acronyms

This is my fifth time at the COPs – the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNDFCC) and the Conference of the Parties of the Kyoto Protocol (KP). These meetings are always very exciting, but there are a number of things which make it difficult to follow what is going on. The first is the constant use of acronyms in both official and unofficial discussions and texts. One could listen to a ten minute conversation in English on the floor of the COP or in one of the many restaurants and not have an idea what was being discussed. It is like learning a new language. And the number of acronyms keeps increasing at each COP. It is like going back to language school for a refresher course to be told by your teacher that a lot more new words have appeared in the intervening year. The only place I could find a Glossary of Terms was at the stall of the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association. I wouldn’t like one of my environmental friends to see me browsing at that particular stall. I would be seen to be supping with the Devil and would probably be immediately excommunicated from the environmental community!!

Keeping many balls in the air

The second difficulty is that there are so many different discussions taking place simultaneously. These focus around the topics such as the Common Vision, Mitigation, Clean technologies, Adaptation, Financial arrangements to mention just a few.  It is almost impossible to keep abreast of a single set of discussions and negotiations, not to mention them all.  To add to the complexity, the texts for negotiation have often more brackets than free texts. The bracketed texts have not been agreed on and, therefore, need to be negotiated. The negotiators have to bear in mind that a change in one set of texts may have implications for other texts. It can take an hour or longer to remove one or two of these brackets, so that text can move up along a supply line to officials at a higher level. Eventually, the Ministers will agree to accept or reject the wording.  New comers find this exacerbating. I was chatting with a delegate for Malawi on my way to the Cancun Messe on December 8^th 2010. He is an agriculturalist by profession and therefore a practical man who likes to see things completed. He was finding the semantic tug-of-war between, for example, “will” and “shall” difficult to stomach, given the seriousness of climate change.

Inclusive processes are valuable, but not easy

One the positive side, an inclusive, multilateral negotiation process gives each  nation an equal voice, no matter how small in size, population or wealth. Furthermore, it is one of the few areas where bodies from the Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) can have an input into the discussions, especially during the first week. Many of these people have huge expertise so their contributions are very valuable. There are also stalls or booths where various Scientific and CSO groups share their research or work with anyone who is willing to drop by. Some of these groups are well known charities, or environmental organisations such as Greenpeace, Friend of The Earth, Caritas Internationalis or the Tyndall Institute.

One thing is certain at COP, there is an abundance of information. Some might say there is even too much. But without good information from the physical sciences on their currently understand of climate change, to how governments or charities are responding to it in the field, good decisions could not be made. Decisions based on bad data will exacerbate rather than solve a problem.  One day I attended a side event organised by the government of Pakistan on the devastating floods in August 2009.  I had followed this appalling tragedy in the media and also through contacts with Columban colleagues. Still, I got good first hand account of the floods which inundated one fifth of the country, destroyed tens of thousands of hectares of arable land and displaced 20 million people. Many of these are still living in makeshift shacks away from their homes.

Can Nation States deal with complex global problems?

This is the kind of background against which countries are trying to work out some way of reducing the release of greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere and also designing institutions to help and support people who are, even now, experiencing the effects of climate change. One of the major problems is that climate change is a global challenge, but the only instrument we have to address it is through negotiations between nation states – political structures which emerged in the 18^th century, but are poorly designed to deal with global issues. Naturally, countries with similar profiles or interests often join together in negotiating blocks. The difficult is that they negotiate to protect their own national interest, instead of working from a perspective that climate change will affect everyone. Of course, the poor, who have done least to cause the problem, will suffer most.

In the midst of all of these swirl of meetings and frenetic activity I often find that a particular moment, happening or encounter gives me an  insight into what is happening which is different from what I glean from the considerable body of information available in books, pamphlets, website or DVDs.

My eureka moments

The word eureka comes from the Greek word eureka meaning, I have found something. Tradition has it that the famous Greek mathematician, Archimedes of Syracuse uttered these words when he discovered the principle of buoyancy which is called Archimedes Principle. At the Nairobi COP, my eureka moment came after attending a seminar on carbon markets which were being promoted as a way to get the private sector to engage in alleviating climate change.  Afterwards, one of the people who had been making the presentation for a global financial corporation, approached me and asked whether I had any money to invest, because I could make a killing on the carbon markets. The goal of reducing carbon emissions had somehow slipped out of view, to be replaced by another mechanism to make easy money.

Cancun is not sustainable

In Cancun, three things that struck me that put the negotiations in context. First of all Cancun is a resort city on the Gulf of Mexico. There is a lot of talk here about carbon sinks, especially forests. In 1974, before the World Bank began to fund the tourist development here at Cancun the area was forested with a number of small communities, fishing villages, mangroves forests and flourishing coral reefs. Fast forward 36 years and there are now 500 major hotels here and 80,000 hotel rooms.

The ecological cost has been horrendous. Iglesias-Prieto, a marine eco-physicist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Puerto Morelos, estimates that in the state of Quintana Roo which includes Cancun, mangrove forests are being lost at about 4% per annum. That means a loss of 150,000 hectares each year. With the mangroves removed the beaches are regularly devastated by storm surge each year. In 2009, Cancun spent $20 million shipping sand to refurbish their beaches.

The human cost of this tourist explosion may only be beginning.  In early November 2010, an explosion in one of the hotels killed five Canadians tourists and injured 20 more. Though the investigation into the cause of the accident has not been completed, many people are saying that it was probably as a result of gases released by decaying mangroves on which the hotel was hastily built. If this proves to be true, many more explosions can be expected in the near future. According to Barbara Bramble an adviser to the National Wildlife Federation in Washington DC, when the building boom began in Cancun in the mid-1980s, “mangroves covered all the coastal area. They have just been paved over. This is the star example of how not to build a mass tourist mecca. It is an ecological mistake that should never have happened.”[1]

There is a lot of talk at the negotiations about the vulnerability of low lying islands or coastal areas.  The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), is making a very good case for immediate support because, in some cases they are already being negatively impacted by climate change. Even a one metre rise would endanger many of them.  But, I heard no one in Cancun saying that this tourist city will probably share that fate and become a ghostly submerged testimony to the ecological madness of a different era.

The second insight also focuses on Cancun.  On Monday I attended a series of lectures on Ethics and Climate Change. The venue was Hotel Riu Cancun.  I took a bus from Cancun Messe, where the CSO groups and stalls are located, down the coastal strip where all the hotels are built one after another. Many of the 500 hotels have familiar names such as Hyatt Regency Cancun, Holiday Inn Cancun and others in local ownership.  Some of the facades are pretty garish, but to be fair that’s probably a question of taste. However, everything which used in the hotels – from the food to the water – has to be brought in from outside.  On the way down I saw sprinklers dampening lawn after lawn, even though I am told that water is becoming a major problem because so much is been drawn from the lake and local aquifer.

I felt uncomfortable chilly in the room during the seminar because the air conditioner was turned up so high. I asked about it and was told that’s how the guests like it. So, from an ecological perspective the Cancun tourist strip is a disaster. Without huge amounts of fossil fuel it could not function at all.

But that is only part of the damage. Iglesias-Prieto points out that pollution from pig farms, golf course, new roads and the destruction of the mangroves is all seriously degrading the water quality.[2] Nearly all the human waste water is “deep injected” below the drinking water aquifer. This might have seemed to be a good idea 25 years ago, the problem now is that this waste water is seeping up through the rocks and making its way into the aquifer.  In terms of the vision or paradigm which the COP is attempting shape, Cancun and hundreds of others like it across the world are dinosaurs. By the way, I found the discussion at the Ethic Forum very stimulating.  Their key objective was how to get ethical language into the negotiation documents, which is one of the reasons I am here.

There is a growing consensus that the average global temperature should not be allow to rise above 1.5^o C. This would involve reducing the current amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere from 389 parts per mission (ppm), to something like 350ppm. Such a move would mean reducing carbon emissions by more than 30% for rich countries by 2020. This, in turn, would demand a much less affluent life style for the majority of people in Northern countries. The expectation of spending a week or so each year in a resort such as Cancun would not be on the cards. So, while participants here discuss different climate scenarios, no one is saying that, the low-carbon world we are striving to create will not be an affluent one.

Huge Ecological Footprint

I remember during the height of the Celtic Tiger in  Ireland,  there were numerous seminars in Dublin hotels encouraging ordinary people to buy a second home in Spain, Portugal, Latvia, Hungry and even as far away as Turkey or Thailand. People were told that the property was cheap, RyanAir will be flying into an airport close by, and the bank manager will advance the money.  We will not be able to enjoy that kind of lavish living in a post-carbon world, where the demands of equity will dictate that poor countries have a moral right to use their fair share of carbon in order to move people out of poverty.  I have never heard anyone at any COP say that, in low -carbon-based economy, affluence is doomed.  In fact one often hears the opposite, namely that a move to a green economy will promote economic growth and a new kind of affluence.

This is a new and strange kind of alchemy. If, as ecologists tell us, our ecological footprint at the moment is once-and-half what the planet can support with only 6.7 billion people, how will the planet cope with a population of 9 billion affluent people by 2050. As I walked back through the tourist city I was convinced that it, and many more similar tourist cities around the world, are facing extinction. There is also the social apartheid – most of the workers are Mexican, while the tourists are from the U.S., Canada, Japan and Brazil. But that discussion is for another day.

I have often been critical of the Holy See’s lack of engagement with ecological issues. A case in point is that the Holy See, while here in Cancun with observer status, is not issuing a statement, though one could be helpful in breaking the deadlock on a number of fronts. I am reliably informed that this decision was made in Rome, presumably by the Secretariat of State. If the meeting was on divorce, abortion, same-sex marriages, I am sure the Holy See would make a contribution.  Still, the Catholic Church is one of the few organisations which has understood what the lifestyle demands of a new sustainable world will be. In Peace with God the Creator, Peace with All Creation, the late Pope John Paull II wrote: “modern society will find no solution to the ecological problem unless it takes a serious look at its life style.  In many parts of the world society is given to instant gratification and consumerism while remaining indifferent to the damage which this causes ….Simplicity, moderation and discipline as well as a spirit of sacrifice, must become a part of everyday life, lest all suffer the negative consequences of the careless hubris of a few.”

Pope Benedict, in a document published on January 1^st 2010, entitled, If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation, repeats the same message. In No. 11 he writes, “it is becoming more and more evident that the issue of environmental degradation challenges us to examine our life-styles and the prevailing models of consumption and production, which are often unsustainable from a social, environmental and even economic point of view. We can no longer do without a real change of outlook which will result in new life-styles, “in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are factors which determine consumer choices, savings and investment.”

The third eureka moment happened in a very different space. At both Cancun Messe and the Moon Palace there are meditation rooms.  I spend most of my time at this COP at Cancun Messe and have popped into the mediations room at least once each day.  During each of my visits I have not seen another person in the room. I remember after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro talking to the Brazilian economist Marcos Arruda. Marcos felt that there would have been a much better outcome, if more philosophers and less economists and politician had been present at the meeting. At least philosophers, in style of Socrates, would ask the questions which everyone else fears and avoids.

There is no doubt in my mind that people here at Cancun, government parties, members of the CSO organisations and scientists are working very hard around the clock trying to tease out viable solutions to climate change. Their effort is huge and I salute them, however, one cannot help wondering whether it might be somewhat easier if they took 30 minutes a day to settle down and meditate.  Maybe some of the solutions might emerge from silence rather than a frenzy of activity.

There was another aspect of the meditation room which intrigued me. There were no chairs. It would appear that those who arranged the meditation room believed that meditation is primarily for the Asian religious traditions, where  people can squat in lotus-like postures on the ground for long periods of time.  Almost 30 years ago, I spent six weeks in an Ashram in Southern India and had no problem sitting on the ground as I had been used to that position during the Eucharist at the small chapel in Mindanao State University in Marawi City were I was assigned at the time.  But time has taken its toll on my lower back and hips which means even the half –lotus position is no longer possible. Now any meditating I do is sitting upright in a chair. So, I felt discriminated again by those who organised the mediation room.  Yes, in terms of ideas, it is very good one, but in terms of getting it right for every potential user, I would reluctantly have to fail them. Maybe this is a metaphor for the whole COP.

As I write on Thursday morning, December 9^th 2010, the mood here at Cancun has changed from quiet optimism to brooding pessimism, given the slow progress of the negotiations. The Japanese have come under huge pressure to soften their stand on a second Kyoto commitment period, but they are sticking to their guns. Many feel that with only two days left for the negotiations, little will be achieve. Most difficult issues will be kicked to touch to be decided in South Africa in 2011. But COPs have a bad habit of kicking to touch, but never throwing the ball back in again to resume play.

Some are hoping that there might be an agreement on issues such as REDDs so that, at least, there is some tangible result from all the work and effort here at Cancun.

 

---

[1] www. Guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/09/cancun-mangrove-paradise-megasprawl/print

 

 

 

[2] Ibid

Ecumenical Declaration presented at the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth Listen to the cry of Mother Earth – Towards a new spirituality of respectful co-existence

The signatory bodies below, in a meeting held at the World Conference of Peoples on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, having engaged in deep reflection on the role of religions and spiritualities in legitimizing systems leading to the collapse of our planet, while at the same time recognizing its vital force, express our deep concern about Climate Change and its effects, which at the same time are an attack on life, especially that of the poorest and most vulnerable people in many parts of the Earth. Mother Earth and the whole Creation is groaning and is in pains of childbirth and requires a new holistic and ecological spirituality in order to preserve life.

We thus declare:

1. The cry of Mother Earth, the sustainer of all life form, is reaching the ears of all people of goodwill. The desire to increase wealth, the comfort of a luxurious life style, consumerism, indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources and pollution of air, water and soil have  brought our planet Earth to the edge of climate breakdown.

2. Climate change is the result of a human mentality that regards Nature as an object to be dominated, exploited and manipulated, and its master and sole measure.

3. We acknowledge that a certain interpretation of the Jewish-Christian tradition has contributed in history to encouraging this type of anthropocentrism and the merciless exploitation of Nature, by wrongly interpreting the responsibility to be the carer and advocate of Creation. Every religious system needs critically to revise its role as regards climate change.

4. We call, together with indigenous peoples and their wisdom, for a deep conversion of the ruling paradigm and of oppressive structures, as well as our mentality, attitudes and way of life, so as to bring our lives into harmony with Nature, the Cosmos and the great mystery of life.

5. We believe that the religions and spiritualities of peoples, in mutual dialogue, can guide us in our search for a life in harmony with the environment, future generations and the cosmos. We thus call on church and religious leaders to make every effort to engage in a wide campaign of awareness-raising and conversion of all believers, in order to contribute to safeguarding life on our planet Earth. We also call on them to make representations to their governments and international bodies such as the United Nations in other that countries commit themselves to greater responsibility in caring for the Earth.

6. We ask political, economic and scientific leaders to take urgent measures to respond effectively to the effects of Climate Change and secure the foundations for abundant life for all, especially the poorest and for future generations. We trust that the coming United Nations summit on Climate Change, COP 16, to take place in Mexico in December 2010, will prove to be a key for the future of humankind.

7. We commit ourselves to implementing in our organisations, religious institutions and personal lives an eco-centric spirituality, and to take awareness-raising measures to change people’s mentality and patterns of consumption.

8. Associating ourselves with the Agreement of the Peoples’, we invoke the life-giving Spirit to guide and strengthen us in our commitment to future generations, and to the whole Creation.

Cochabamba, 22 April 2010 (Mother Earth Day)

What has happened during the past 10 days at Cancun? Fr. Seán McDonagh, SCC

In racing terms we have rounded the last bend are on to the home straight. On some courses, I am told, the final furlong or two involves climbing a steep incline, so a lot more will happen here between now and Friday, December 10, 2010, when COP 16 ends. In this report I will try and give a flavour of what has taken place here since November 29^th 2010.

Inclusiveness, transparency and balance

Three words dominated the first week of negotiations – inclusiveness, transparency and balance.  The first two were balm to many of the participants from developing countries because, from procedural perspective, Copenhagen was a painful failure. At the outset, expectations for success were unrealistically high, given the way the negotiations had been taking place throughout most of 2009.  The Danish Presidency should have spotted that before the Copenhagen conference and dampened down expectations. In fact, it did the opposite. On many bill boards around the city the name Copenhagen was changed to Hopenhagen. The wags were calling it BrokenHagen before the end of the first week. Furthermore, flying in 155 heads of state to save the planet wasn’t a bright idea, especially since they had to go home almost empty handed. Politicians do not relish that kind of failure.

In addition, many participants from developing countries were annoying at the fact that the Danes initiatived “parallel negotiations” with carefully chosen countries. When a “hidden text” appeared from this group at the end of the first week, many participants were furious. They also claimed that the face-saving  Cancun Accord itself hijacked the UNFCCC multilateral negotiation process. The result was that many participants left Copenhagen with a strong feeling that trust had completely broken down. Finally, the logistics at Copenhagen were also terrible. Professor John Sweeney of NUI Maynooth spent 8 hours standing in the freezing cold waiting to register. It took him 10 minutes to do the same here at Cancun.  The CSO community was also furious because they were effectively banned from the conference centre during the last three days of negotiations. Some of these people had spent huge amounts of money getting to Copenhagen.

Since Copenhagen the Mexican President Filipe Calderon and, especially the COP President and Mexican Foreign Minister, Patricia Espinosa has worked tirelessly to rebuild trust. They have stated publicly on many occasions that there will be no “parallel negations” or “hidden texts” in Cancun, a clear reference to Copenhagen.  Judged by the many compliments she received during the informal stocktaking on Saturday, December 4^th 2010, she seems to have re-established trust and achieved that goal.

Two key words were used again and again by the Mexican presidency – transparency and inclusion. This even applied to the members of Civil Society Organisations (CSO). The Mexicans appear to be looking for new opportunities to engage as wide a constituency as possible in seeking solutions to climate change. This could provide new openings for CSO and religious groups to share their insights and wisdom with the other participants with a view to forging viable solutions to climate change. Such new opportunities opens up possibility for including ethical language in the final documents.

Balance and Flexibility

The two other key words which keep cropping up in the negotiations are balance and flexibility. Balance, of course, means different things to different people. As I explained in an earlier article, there are two negotiating processes taking place simultaneously here at Cancun. One is the meeting of the Parties to the UNFramework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  All the countries here at Cancun are members of the UNFCCC, but there are no binding commitments. The second track is the meeting of the Parties of the Kyoto Protocol (KP). These are rich countries, in the jargon of the conference, Annex 1 countries. These countries have signed up to binding commitments to reduce GHG emissions by 5.2% to 7% below 1990 levels by 2012. The KP did not set any binding limits for non-Annex I countries – because, in what is called ‘common but differentiated responsibilities,’ the drafters recognised that poor countries will have to fossil fuel to develop and overcome the poverty of many of its citizens.

Emissions are still rising

Neither the U.S. nor Australia has signed the Kyoto Protocol.  For over a decade The EU was an enthusiastic promoter of the Kyoto Protocol. This diminished somewhat at the Poznans COP in 2008.  The fact that Poland, which has a huge coal industry, held the presidency during COP 14 probably contributed to this change. There are also heavy industries and utilities in other EU countries such as Germany which have also gone lukewarm on the Kyoto Protocol.  Here at Cancun the EU believes that, “a balanced and comprehensive package on the Kyoto Protocol and the Convention, is within reach.”

Still a huge Gigaton gap

However, the most disheartening thing about the performance of Annex 1 countries, even under Kyoto Protocol, is that they have actually increased their GHG emissions, according to the National Greenhouse Gas inventory covering the period 1990 to 2007.  Moreover as the United Nations Environment Programme’s document, The Emissions Gap Report: Are the Copenhagen Accord Pledges Sufficient to Limit Global Warming to 2 ^o C or 1.5 ^o C? points out, even with all the reduction pledges currently on the table there is, at least, a 5 to 9 gigaton gap between what has been promised and what the science is saying is necessary for keeping the rise in the average global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius. This is the minimum requirement for what is now being called ‘a safe future.’ The Mexican environment minister, Mr. Juan Rafael Elvira Quesada, is on record as saying that the gigaton gap must appear in the final text.

Balance?

The current phase of the Kyoto Protocol is due to run out in 2012. This is why developing countries want a second KY to be signed either here at Cancun or, more realistically, at Durban next year. For developing countries this is what they mean when they talk about a balanced outcome from Cancun. The Group of 77 and China have also made it clear that a second commitment period of the Koyto Protocol is indispensible and that this is what was agreed to in the Bali Road Map at COP13, in 2008.

For the U.S. however, a balanced outcome is where everyone begins to make voluntary, but measured and verifiable commitments to reduce GHGs.  Unless this happens, the US has indicated that it might not be willing to push ahead with other items, such as the Climate Fund which has been designed to help developing countries reduce their dependence on fossil fuel energy as they develop their economies and overcome widespread poverty. To developing countries this sounds like bullying..

Balance for the Kyoto Protocol countries would involve the U.S. assuming comparable commitment in reducing GHG as those undertaken by the KP countries. With these mitigation commitments in place, balance for developing countries would involve taking appropriate mitigation action nationally, with the expectation that adequate finance and technology will be made available to carry out this task.

Moving Forward

The Mexican presidency is attempting to nudge both groups to forward towards an agreement on a number of fronts.  This will involved both side compromising. But at least the process will be able to move forward politically. Mexico and others are rightly afraid that, if nothing is achieved at Cancun, the UN multilateral negotiating process will unravel and that action to deal with climate change will be placed in another forum, possibly even the G20.   For all its weaknesses, the UN process promotes inclusion, transparency and impartial implementation and has a mechanism for implementing and monitoring decisions. Mexico is willing to accept what is being called a “cheese” agreement, meaning that it might be full of holes and that all t are not crossed nor i dotted but, at least, there will be some substance and, most of all, movement towards a more ambitious agreement next year.

It is important to say that some countries would not lose too much sleep if the UN multilateral process broke down. I believe that the U.S., Canada, Japan, Australia and Saudi Arabia and others are in that camp, but none of the above wish to be blamed for pulling the roof down on a negotiation process. Nevertheless, they would probably favour a more direct role for an organisation such as the G20 which, they would argue would be more efficient in achieving the task of reducing GHG. Of course, they would also have more control in such a forum.  However, the G20, unlike the UN, has no readymade architecture to carry on this kind of discussion or even a secretariat to promote and monitor implementation and compliance. Even during the Administration of Democrat Presidents, the U.S. has not been fully at home with multilateral processes. That is why it has not signed Law of the Sea, the UN Convention on Biodiversity, the Catajena Protocol on Biosafety and many others.

On December 6^th 2010, ministers from the various countries began arriving in  Cancun. They will now take the lead in the negotiations which their officials have been pursuing on their behalf for the past week.  These were welcomed by Minister Patricia Espinosa who asked them to help her in carrying out consultations in five crucial areas – shared vision, adaptation, mitigation, finance, technology and capacity building.  She called on them to “carry out consultations in order to help us identify the areas where solutions may lie, and thus lead to further progress.”  She went on the record as saying that “I believe we can complete the package, or at least make significant advances, before the opening of the high level segment on Tuesday afternoon.

I think the Indian environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, captured the current mood of the Conference when he said that, “there is more camaraderie here (Cancun), more dialogue, more intense engagement and less shadow boxing than in Copenhagen, because China has moved on the transparency issue.”[1]

In fact, he has put forward a plan to bridge the gap between the United States and China on verification, by establishing a voluntary programme known as international consultation and analysis. Under the plan, called I.C.A., countries would declare their emissions reduction targets and provide regular reports on how they were meeting them and gauging their own progress.[2]

In this report I have tried to avoid, as much as possible, acronyms such as – AWGLCA – Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action or GEG – Least Developed Countries Expert Group or LULUCF – Land-use, Land-use change and Forestry, or Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation – REDD – because I know it would turn you off and send you back to your coffee.  I am heading for the coffee bar myself where I hope to pick up some news about what is happening today.

---

[1] www.nytimes.com/20/10/08/science/earth/08climate.html?

[2] ibid

The acidification of the Oceans Fr. Sean McDonagh, SSC

The oceans have a very special place in the story of the Universe. To many of us, they are just there and seem ordinary and common place. But we can truly appreciate their significance when we view them as a special aspect of the unfolding of the universe itself. As far as we know, liquid water is found nowhere else in the Universe. Water vapor and ice has been found on other planets, but only on planet Earth have the oceans been created and maintained in their liquid form for four billion years. Oceans were probably on the Red planet (Mars), but they have long since vanished.

Furthermore, the oceans are the womb of life. For almost 2 billion years, bacteria were the only forms of life on earth. During the first billion years, the blue-green algae learned how to take hydrogen from the oceans and to release oxygen into Earth’s carbon-dominated atmosphere. This was the beginning of photosynthesis.

More serious disruption than sea-level rising

Many people are now aware that the increased levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere, since the beginning of the industrial revolution, is contributing to the rise in the ocean levels through thermal expansion and through melting glaciers in the Antarctic and Greenland.

But something else is also happening about which few people are aware. About one quarter to one third of the CO₂ ends up in the oceans, where it dissolves to form carbonic acid, and then dissociates into bicarbonate and hydrogen ions. The more hydrogen ions there are in the water, the lower its pH is. In other words, it is more acidic. Furthermore, the excess of hydrogen ions react with, and eliminate carbonate ions, which are necessary for the formation of calcium carbonate skeletons and shell production in many species of marine organisms. Scientists have found that there are less carbonate ions in the ocean now than at any other time in the past 800,000 years.

Normally the surface waters of the oceans are slightly alkaline with a pH greater than 7. However, because they are absorbing more CO₂, the oceans are about 30% less alkaline today than they were before the industrial revolution. The consequences of this are very significant and worrying on a number of fronts. Less alkaline water reduces the availability in seawater of carbonate minerals such as calcite and aragonite. These minerals are important in the formation of corals, shellfish, marine plankton and fish skeletons. The physiology, development and even survival of these creatures is thereby threatened.

During my years in the Philippines, I enjoyed regularly snorkeling in coral reefs. I also became aware of the importance of corals for marine life and the people who fished the reefs. Over the years, I began to learn something about the extraordinary biological diversity in coral reefs. Studies have shown that that at least one quarter of the biodiversity of the oceans are found in coral reefs. Because of their wealth in species, coral reefs they are often referred to as the rainforests of the ocean.

They are very important for humans also. It is estimated that world-wide, 500 million people depend on corals reefs for coastal protection, food, tourism and other forms of income. Economists estimate that reefs and their products are worth between US$30 and $172 billion per annum. In Hawaii alone, for example, the tourism generated by the coral reefs brings in US $364 million per annum.

This is all under threat from ocean acidification. Since 1990, skeletal growth on the Great Barrier Reef off the east coast of Australia, was down by 14%. This is the largest stunted growth level in the past 400 years. In an increasingly acidic ocean, coral reefs will decline and may even become extinct.1 It is estimated that 4,000 species of fish depend on coral reefs. Reefs are marine nurseries, providing food, shelter and a safe haven from predators. The dwindling corals are already impacting on a number of species of fish, leading to the extinction of some species.

Pteropods

Pteropods are tiny swimming sea snails which are abundant in the oceans. There are often thousands of individual snails per cubic metre.2 They are an important element in the marine food chain as they form the diet of zooplankton, salmon, herring, and baleen whales. The question is, will they thrive in an increasingly acidic oceans, because their calcium carbonate shells may not develop properly. Some predict that as early as 2050, pteropods may be unable to form shells which would threaten their own survival and the species which depend on them.3.

Other species will benefit from higher levels of carbon dioxide in the oceans. The problem is that these species are currently seen as nuisance or weedy species. Top of the list are jellyfish. Scientists are not clear yet whether the increased prevalence of jellyfish is as a direct result of ocean acidification.4 Jellyfish blooms could have a disastrous impact on other species and on the oceans in general. They also will impact on tourism, as no one likes to be stung by a jellyfish while swimming in the ocean.

If the oceans become more acidic there will be a serious decline in biodiversity, and thereby affecting a whole raft of species, including humankind as the oceans are less able to supply us with food. Reducing GHG gas emissions, especially CO₂ is not just important in tackling climate change, it is also necessary if we want to protect the fruitfulness of our oceans on which we all depend.5

 

 

1 Hoegh-Gudberg, O …et all (2007) Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science, 318 (5857); 1737-1742.

2 Doney, S., Fabry, V. Feely, R., Kleypas, J. (2009) Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem, Annual Review of Marine Science, 1:169-92.

3 Orr, J.C., et al. (2005) Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and the impact on calcifying organisms, Nature, 437-:681-686.

 

Climate Refugees Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

Even though the displacement of people, often on a permanent basis, always appears on any list of the consequences of climate change, little has been done to address their plight.  The first assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR1), stated that the single greatest impact of climate change may well be the mass migration of humans, a phenomenon which is now being called –“climigration.” That Report went on to suggest that by 2050, 150 million people would be displaced by climate change phenomena such as desertification, droughts and water scarcity, rising sea-levels, disappearance of arable land and severe weather events.  In other words, people will be forced to leave environments which are no long hospitable for human beings. The iconic examples which have received such media attention are those people living on low lying islands in the Southern Pacific and Indian Ocean.  However, the devastation to New Orleans caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 is a reminder that climate-induced migration may not be confined to poorer countries. Of course rich countries, such as the U.S., have the ability to protect such areas unless the severe weather event which only appear once in a hundred years, now happens every few years.

Numbers involved?

The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change published in 2006,  estimates that the figure could be as high as 250 million people.[1] Despite these enormous numbers (and others would even project a figure of 500 million climate-induced migrants), these people have yet to receive significant attention at any of the COPs to date. Even if one accepts the 200 million figure, this is ten times the entire population of documented refugees and internally displaced people today.

No adequate legal or policy framework

And as yet, there are no policy measures to address “climigration”, in fact, there isn’t an agreed term for these displaced people.  Many object to the term environmental or climate change “refugees,” because of the meaning of the term “refugee” is enshrined in international agreements such as the 1951 Refugee Covenant. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organisation for Migration (IMO) have advised against using terms such “climate refugees” or “environmental refugees” because they have no legal basis in international refugee law. They advise that the terms be avoided so as not to undermine the international legal regime for the protection of refugees.[2] Under the present rules for climate-induced migrants to be considered as refugees there would have to be evidence that their governments were intentionally destroying the environment and livelihoods of these people, which is very seldom the case.

One thing that must be kept in mind in all this discussion is that the people who are forced to migrate because of the massive changes which climate change has brought about in their tradition habitat, did little to cause these problemin the first instance.. Rather, the impact has occurred because of the actions of other people in other parts of the globe who have burned and continue to burn fossil fuel.  These people whether, from the coastline of Bangladesh or the Maldives, have a right to be resettled somewhere.  In view of the causes of mass climate-induced migration, the potential numbers involved and the fact that the possibilities of returning to their original homes are virtually nil, these issues need to be drawn into migration management policies and practices debate.

Disappearing States

One real lacuna is that in international law there is no legal framework for dealing with states or territories which simply disappear as a consequence of a rise in sea-levels. This means that there is no legal framework at the moment for dealing with the status and rights of people whose state disappeared. Some precedence, such as the African Union Convention for the Protections and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa which was  signed in Kampala in October 2009, might be helpful. The Economist stated that the “most significant bit of the convention is the recognition accorded to climate change migrants.”[3]

Any legal terminology to cover climate-induced migration must incorporate a sense of global responsibility and accountability for what has happened to these people.  In particular, the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Climate Change must include obligations and responsibilities to respond to climate-induce migration for Annex 1 countries (rich countries). This would lay out the   obligations of rich countries, which have benefited greatly from the use of fossil fuels over the past 100 years, have towards poor countries which are now experiencing the negative impacts of climate change and do not have the resources to tackle the problem effectively.

The historical records show that the United States is responsible for 29% of GHG emissions, the countries comprising the EU for 26% and Russia for 8%. Developing countries and emerging economies are responsible for 24%, though, of course, that percentage is rising as their economies expand.

In the light of these statistics, the responsibility of developed countries for the current problems which are forcing people to leave their homes permanently because of climate change, needs to be acknowledged and acted upon. At first glance, there would seem to be the possibility of applying the “polluter pays principle” which is enshrined as Internationalization of Environmental Costs in Principle 16 of the Rio Declaration (UNCED 1992.  This environmental principle is derived for the moral demand that a person must make restitution to another human being for the damages which one’s behaviour has caused.  In the case of climate change, the damage is not merely to an individual but to groups of people who must leave their homes because they have disappeared, in the case of small low-lying islands, or can now longer be farmed because of prolonged climate-induced drought.

Need for new institutions and structures

There is also an urgent need to recognize in international law the unique situation of climate-induce migrants, seeing that none of the traditional categories or legal frameworks appears to be of much help to them.  It is time to develop a new category before the problem becomes overwhelming. The Stern Review constantly states that the cost of inaction on climate change will be far higher the longer we put off doing something concrete about it. The same logic applied directly to the situation of climate-induced migration.

There have been a number of efforts to date.  In the run up to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was considering including climate-induced migration and displacement in a post-Kyoto agreement. It was envisaged as part of the Action Plan on Adaptation. This seems to be no longer on the cards.

Furthermore, the UNFCCC should include strong human rights language as a  guiding principle in any post Kyoto agreement, because a rights-based approach establishes procedural standards for government policies and international agencies. There would seem to be a need for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UNFCCC to cooperate more closely in developing guidelines for designing appropriate adaptation polices.

Since climate-induced migration, will often involve groups of people, rather than individuals, there is also a need for an international dedicated agency to deal effectively with what will be a recurring problem. Otherwise the ad hoc response to each disaster as it occurs will probably be chaotic.

I have written this article, not because I have any great expertise in working with migrants, but because I am aware that many Regions and Mission Units in the Columban Society are addressing the current needs of migrants and refugees. As is obvious from this article, this is  a new area and, there are many more questions than answers. But, I believe a start must be made because there is no doubt in my mind but that this will become a major issue in the not too distant future.

In writing this article I found two publications helpful:

1.     “Climate Change Induced Forced Migrants: in need of dignified recognition under a new Protocol.” Equity and Justice Working Group Bangladesh, (December 2009). www.equitydg.org

2.     “Climate Refugees” beyond Copenhagen: legal concept, political implications, normative considerations, published by Diakonisches Werk der EKD e.V, for “Brot fur die Weit, D-70184 Stuttgart. www.brot-fuer-die-welt.de

---

[1] Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change 2006, www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm

 

[2] Biermann, Frank and Ingrid Boas, Protecting Climate Refugees: The Case for a Global Protocol.

[3] Economist 2009, 52.

During most of the Presidency of George W Bush, the administration was either promoting climate skeptics or hindering global consensus and action on Climate change. The election of Barack Obama, appeared to introduce a new era in the U,S’s  approach to climate  change because the president himself both knew what was involved scientifically and seemed willing to do something about it.  By mid 2009, the U.S. appeared to be moving towards and ambitious climate change policies with the passage a comprehensive climate change bill in the U.S. House of Representatives.

From Hope to Despair

Then in December 2009, expectations were high that Copenhagen would complete the Bali Road Map and develop an ambitious, legally binding treaty to reduce green house gas emissions (GHG) and thus tackle climate change. Trust between the Parties to both the UN Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol broke down in Copenhagen when the Danish Presidency seemed to abandon the multi-lateral negotiation process in favour of cobbling together an Accord which was negotiated by a select handful of countries. The Copenhagen Accord did at least acknowledge that climate change is the greatest challenge facing humankind, and that steps must be taken so that the mean global temperature will not rise about 2 degrees Celsius.  But there were no binding emission targets, timelines or sanctions. All that was asked of the Parties is that they make voluntary pledges to limit greenhouse emissions. A recent study by The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) entitled The Emissions Gap Report makes it very clear that current pledges would not reach the target of 2 degrees Celsius set by the Accord.[1]

By mid-2010, the momentum to enact climate legislation in the U.S. Congress had passed, partly because of the economic crisis, the intransigence of the Republican Party, some wavering Democrats from coal mining states, scientific disinformation and a well funded opposition. Though the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill had passed through the House in June 2009, the chances of a similar bill passing the Senate was thwarted by the death of two key Democratic Senators, a major oil spill in the Gulf and implacable opposition from Republicans. In July 2010, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that he was not bringing his the bill to the Senate floor.

The emergence of the “Tea Party” complicated things further. Many of the “Tea Party” candidates, who were climate deniers, were well funded by right wing libertarians associated with the Republican Party.  Some claimed that climate change was a conspiracy dreamed up to promote industry in China and India at the expense of U.S. companies.  This group took votes not just from Democrats but also from moderate-leaning Republicans, several of whom lost their seat in the election.

Mid Term Elections and Climate Sceptics

The mid-term election in the United States on November 2^nd 2010, was not just a bad day for the Democratic Party, it also saw the election of a host of climate sceptics.  This will make it much more difficult for President Obama to get an energy or climate bill through the US Congress during the next two years.

The following are some of the comments made by newly elected members of the U.S. Congress according to Kevin Kobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists. (UCS).

“With the possible exception of Tiger Woods, nothing has had a worse year than global warming. We have discovered that a good portion of the science used to justify “climate change” was a hoax perpetrated by leftist ideologues with an agenda.”
-Todd Young, new congressperson from Indiana.
“I absolutely do not believe that the science of man-caused climate change is proven. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I think it’s far more likely that it’s just sunspot activity or something just in the geologic eons of time where we have changes in the climate.”
-Ron Johnson, new senator from Wisconsin

“I think we ought to take a look at whatever the group is that measures all this, the IPCC, they don’t even believe the crap.”
-Steve Pearce, new congressperson from New Mexico
“It’s a bigger issue, we need to watch ‘em.  Not only because it may or may not be true, but they’re making up their facts to fit their conclusions. They’ve already caught ‘em doing this.”
-Rand Paul, new senator from Kentucky.

“There isn’t any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth.”
-Roy Blunt, new senator from Missouri. [2]

It is important to recognize that these sceptics had formidable backing from big oil, the coal industry, and electric utilities. In Merchants of Death, published earlier this year by Bloomsbury, two U.S. well known academics, Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, exposed how corporations and conservative foundations have funded a number of campaigns during the past 40 years. In the 1970s, despite overwhelming medical evidence linking smoking and cancer, they managed to delay anti-smoking legislation.  They have also helped to block legislation curbing acid rain, ozone-layer depletion and, in the past two decades, global warming and climate change.

Robust Science

What about the science of climate change which many of these new members of Congress are dismissing?  In 1999, Peter Stott, who was then head of climate modeling at the British Met Office’s, Myles Allen from Oxford University and a number of meteorologists published an article in the journal Nature. They based their predictions on the range of temperature change for the period between 2000 and 2040 on temperature data which had been collected in the period between 1946 and 1996.  They then drew a graph representing the range of predicted outcomes for that period with a dotted line indicating the most likely outcome.  The graph predicted that there would be a 0.8 degrees rise in temperature in 2010, when compared with 1946. This is exactly what has happened. So, in that stringent test, the science has been vindicated. [3]

Nature does not heed climate skeptics

All the denial in the world will not stop the processes of Nature.  The US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the first eight months of 2010 were as hot as the first eight months of 1998 – the warmest ever recorded. But there is a crucial difference. In 1998, there was a record El Niño – the warm phase of the natural Pacific temperature oscillation. The 2010, El Niño was smaller (an anomaly peaking at roughly 1.8C, rather than 2.5C), and brief by comparison to those of recent years. Since May the oscillation has been in its cool phase (La Niña). Even so, June, July and August this year were the second warmest on record. Unfortunately, even with such stronger the warnings, there are still many doubters and effective actions is postponed. This, of course, is grossly immoral because those who did least to cause the present crisis will suffer most and, furthermore, delaying action on climate change will have a deleterious impact of all future generations of humans and other creatures.

Signs of Hope

On the positive side the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported that GHG emission declined during the period 2008 – 2010.  This was a result of the economic down turn and the conversion of some coal-fired utilities to natural gas.  Another positive factor was the Obama economic stimulus package (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act).  This directed 18% of the total US$787 billion to climate change and energy projects.  The five largest green allocations, in descending order are renewable forms of energy, energy efficiency, transit and high-speed rail, and the modernization of the power grid.  This injection of capital was very important as ‘green’ energy companies were beginning to row back financially because of the recession.

On another front, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing to regulate CO₂ as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and the Supreme Court decision of 2007.  If the rules to further restrict NO_x, SO₂,  Mercury and acid gas come into force this will reduce an estimated 25-59 GW of highly polluting coal-fire utilities. Many fear that the Republicans, with support from the coal lobby, will do everything in their power to thwart this course of action.

States are more active

While serious movement at the Federal level is being hampered by politicians in Washington promoting corporate vested interests, there has been quite a bit of movement at State and local level. Forty one States have established greenhouse gas registers. In addition, nearly two-thirds of the states are involved in one of three regional initiatives for capping emissions. The three are the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), The Western Climate Initiative (WCI) and the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord) MGGRA). While all of the three have relative modest targets the combined scale is significant.

As often happens, for good or ill in the U. S., where California goes the nation follows. California adopted the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) in 2006.  This is a large scale demonstration project designed to combat climate change by combining emissions limits with huge investment in green energy.  Rules to limit GHG emissions will become operative on January 1, 2012.

Despite the dubbing which the Democrats received in the mid-term elections, Californians voted down Proposition 23, which was designed to suspend AB 32’s provisions until unemployment fell below 5.5%. The Republican candidate for the Governorship, Meg Whitman promised to impose a one-year moratorium on A 32 if elected.  She was defeated by Democrat Jerry Brown, a longtime supporter of environmental initiatives, even though she spent a fortune on her election campaign. Furthermore, Proposition 32 was defeated by a large majority, despite a well-funded campaign backed by out-of-state fossil fuel interests and the “Tea Party.”

How will the U.S. behave in Cancun?

Participants, particular from the CSOs, are hoping that the U.S. doesn’t throw its weight around this week. Any effort by the Obama Administration to withhold funding from countries which have been critical of the Copenhagen Accord will backfire. It will only annoy countries of the South and possibly derail any substantive negotiations.  The main media focus on Wikileaks documents last week was on the embarrassment felt by U.S. politicians and diplomats because of comments they had made on fellow politicians and diplomats right across the world on, what they thought were secure confidential cables.  But WikiLeaks cables also show the extent to which the U.S. was willing to pressure on those nations which were critical of the Copenhagen Accord.[4]

Some countries feel that the U.S. will attempt to block progress the setting up a Global Climate Fund if its demands on mitigation (reducing GHG emissions) and transparency from emerging economies such as China are not met.  Todd Stern issued such an ultimatum at the Geneva Dialogue of Climate Funding in September.  He is on record as saying:  “We are not going to move on the Green Fund (A UNFCC controlled Climate Fund to help developing countries adapt to and mitigate climate change) and the $100 billion  (in long-term financing that the U.S. had previously promised to help mobilize ) if the issues that were central to the Copenhagen Accord, that were part of the balance of the Copenhagen Accord, including mitigation and transparency, don’t also move.”[5]

This is some of the back ground to the U.S. presence here at Cancun.  Like the Chinese, thus far they have not raised their voice too loudly.   A lot will be revealed this week.

In the intensity of the debate and the various dimensions of what is a complex  process, one  can easily forget the importance of what is happening here in Cancun. In a sense the world media has forgotten. Only a fraction of the media which were at Copenhagen is here in Cancun. In my daily internet checks of media outlets in Irish, British and U.S., I find that the Cancun Conference is getting very little coverage. But the issue hasn’t changed.  Unless the international community can frame an ambitious, legally binding treaty within a year or so, the consequences for humankind, the planet and all future generations will be dire. In the past two years countries such as Ireland, Britain and the U.S. used taxpayers money to save doggy bank in the belief that they were too big to fail. But it seems that the welfare of the planet cannot garner the same kind of attention. Is there any clearer indication that our values are totally skewed in the wrong direction?

Some of the above technical data is from A Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) Policy Brief distributed here at Cancun. The rest is my own gleaned from a variety of sources.

---

[1] The Emissions Gap Report: Are the Copenhagen Accord Pledges Sufficient to Limit Global Warming to 2 degree Celsius or 1.5 degree Celsius? November 12, 2010.

[2] http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/next-steps-for-climate.html?utm_source=sp&utm_medium

[3] Robin McKie, “A dark ideology is driving those who deny climate change,” The Observer, August 1^st 2010, page 28.

[4] Damian Carrington, The Guardian, December 3, 2010. www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/is-basics-copenhagen-accord-tactics/print

[5][5]  Fact Sheet prepared by a number of Civil Society Organisations, The Third World Network, November 2010.

Has Any One Seen China or the U.S.?

As we reach the end of the first week on the UN Conference on Climate Change (C0P 16) in Cancun, many people are asking, why have the U.S. and China been so quiet? Of course, in the Daily Programme you will find representatives from both China and the U.S. attending various negotiation sessions, and a glance at the Earth Negotiations Bulletin shows that each day a Chinese representative has made some intervention, some of which are quite important. In the December 2, 2010, edition of the Negotiation Bulletin, China reaffirmed its “commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, a legally-binding outcome to strengthen the Convention’s implementation.”

But, thus far, there has been very little noise from either the U.S. or China. During the Presidency of George W. Bush, even though the U.S negotiators were either supporting climate skeptics or obstructing progress in every way possible, they always made themselves heard. Things have changed a little with the election of President Barack Obama. While the President is convinced of the importance of tackling climate change at a global level, getting an energy bill through the U.S. Senate has so far proved impossible. Getting Climate legislation passed will be even more difficult over the next two years with the Republicans in control of the House of Representatives.

Even though Copenhagen took place at the end of the first year of the Obama administration, shrill voices were still emanating from the U.S. camp. Todd Stern, the U.S. chief negotiator told the Copenhagen meeting that he had no time for the notion of the “historic carbon debt,” which had underpinned U.S. and European affluence for the past 100 years at least. On arrival in Copenhagen he said, “Emissions are emissions. You’ve just got to do the math. If you care about the science, and we do, there is no way to solve the problem by giving the major developing countries a pass.”

This remark is aimed at China and India, since both countries have increased their emissions in recent years. China is now the largest emitter of CO2, but its per capita emissions are only one-third that of the U.S. Furthermore, historically their emissions have been very low, and even now a substantial proportion of

their population still lives in poverty.

Many Northern countries were critical of the role played by China, India, South Africa and Brazil in the Copenhagen debacle. Ed Miliband, the UK’s climate secretary at the time, in an article in The Guardian, accused China of hijacking the Copenhagen summit and “holding the world to ransom” in order to prevent a deal.

Whether Todd Stern understands what the notion of “common but differentiated responsibilities” means, China has unique problems combating climate change. First, as critics are quick to point out, China is now the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Secondly, China has surpassed Japan as the second largest economy in the world. Thirdly, China’s foreign exchange reserves, which in 2010 stands at a staggering US$2 trillion, is the highest in the world. Fourthly, China has seen rapid economic growth since the early 1980s, which lifted over 300 million people out of poverty.

In response to the above, the Chinese point out that its population is more than four times the population of the U.S. First of all, it is important to state that China’s per capita GHG emissions are a third of the U.S. Secondly, for all the economic gains of the past three decades, China is still a relatively poor country. It may come as a surprise to many that China’s per capita GDP ranks below the top 100 countries in the world. In terms of social development as judged by the 2009 Human Development Index compiled by the UN Development Programme, China is 92nd on the list. China argues that it must keep moving along the path of economic growth in order to improve the livelihoods for a further 600 million people, some of whom in 2010, live on less than a dollar a day. China claims that there is no similar level of poverty in the U.S., Europe or Japan, so expecting the Chinese to take the same steps today as countries who have built their wealth on fossil fuel is patently unfair.

Speaking during the Tianjin Climate meeting, Xie Zhenhua, China’s top negotiator said that for a county that was still developing, it was unreasonable to expect it to set limits for GHG emissions while rich nations failed to cut their emissions. He believed that it was unfair for countries with a per capita GDP of $40,000 a year to demand that a country with a mere $3,000 per annum GDP submit to a common GHG reduction regime.1

1 Clifford Coonan, “Climate change talks in China generate more heat than light,” The Irish Times,

Furthermore, as the work shop of the world, China is subsidizing other countries’ carbon budget. Zhao Zhogxiu, head of the International School of Business and Economics, claims that that when a “Made in China” Barbie doll is shipped out, it leaves only one-tenth of its monetary value in China, but three-quarters of its carbon emission budget is picked up by China. So, in fact, the Chinese workshop is now subsidizing other countries which have allowed the manufacturing sector in their own countries to dwindle, because goods are available cheaply from China.2

In terms of its energy source, China is also at a disadvantage when compared to richer countries. The energy supplies of these countries come from very different sources. China, on the other hand, is still very much dependent on coal. In 2008, electricity generated from coal accounted for a massive 75% of China’s power generation capacity.3 Even though China is investing heavily in clean energy, it still expects coal to provide a significant amount of energy in the next few years. This is why it is keen to develop carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. This process could be speeded up if wealthy countries were willing to share new technologies with China.

Still, China has quite a record in alternative energy systems. 1n 2009, China had the largest hydro-electric capacity in the world, 197 million kW. China produces 40% of the world’s photovoltaic cells totalling four million kW. 60% of the world’s solar water heating panels, totally 145 million square metres, can be found in China. Wind farms are also springing up in many places. In July 2010, 34 wind farms began operating at Shanghai East Sea Bridge Wind Farm. The facility will generate 267 million kW a year, which is the equivalent of 100,000 tonnes of coal. It supplied power to the Shanghai Expo in 2010.4

October 7, 2010.

2 Zhao Zhongxiu, “Four Obstacles to a Low-Carbon Economy,” China Today, Our Hopes for Cancun” page 50

3 Jiao Feng, “Chinese Companies Battle Emissions,” China Today: Our Hope For Cancun, page 37.

4 Ibid page 38.

According to a recent report from the WorldWatch Institute, a Washington, DC-based environmental NGO, entitled, Worldwatch Report: Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency in China: Current Status and Prospects for 2020, China has become a leader in renewable energy. At a time when many countries are still struggle with the aftermath of a devastating financial crisis, the Chinese government has used its strong financial position to direct tens of billions of dollars into clean energy— increasing the lead that Chinese companies have in many sectors. 5

Since 2005, the Chinese government has elevated its energy conservation and energy efficiency efforts to basic state policy. The 11th Five-Year Plan (2006–10), set an energy-savings target of 20 percent, and the country has adopted administrative, legal, and economic measures to achieve this goal. During the first three years of the plan, China’s energy intensity— its energy consumption per unit of GDP—fell by just over 10 percent, saving 290 million tons of coal equivalent (tce) and reducing the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 750 million tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent. This pace of energy conservation has rarely been achieved by the rest of the world. 6

Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is impressed with China’s record in promoting clean energy. She n cited an article in the New York Times from its columnist Tom Friedman last year who said the Chinese decision to invest in green technologies was the “21st-century equivalent of the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of Sputnik”.

China is a world leader in the manufacture of solar panels and research into carbon capture, the process of burning coal while not emitting greenhouse gases.[1]

Unlike powerful vested interests in the U.S. who are either in denial or opposed to addressing climate change, China knows how vulnerable it is to severe wealth events. In June 2010, floods in China killed over 175 people, displaced 800,000 and destroyed homes and businesses in Guangdong and Fujian provinces. The damage was estimated at $1.6 billion. In the previous year, much of that area had experienced the worst drought in living memory. 7 Spreading desertification is also a major climate-related issue for China. China, furthermore, is aware that if the glaciers diminish significantly on the Himalayas or the Tibetan plateau, this will have a direct negative impact on the Yangtze and Yellow rivers which are so important to the agricultural and other needs of tens of millions of Chinese.

It will be interesting to see how the U.S. and China interact with each other and the other Parties during the second week of COP 16.

5 http://www.worldwatch.org/renewables-and-efficiency-in-china

6 ibid

7 “China’s floods kill 175 and displace 800,000, The Irish Times, June 22, 2010, page 29.

---

[1]

Which Road Will Cancun Take? Fr. Seán McDonagh

An announcements by Japan on the eve of the UN Conference on Climate Change at Cancun that the government of Japan will not agree to second Kyoto Protocol  but would opt for “single treaty” approach took people by surprise.  The announcement seemed strange on a couple of accounts. Firstly, the Kyoto Protocol was conceived and agreed on at the Kyoto Climate Change meeting in December 1997 after a lot of hard nose negotiation.

At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, almost every country in the world recognised that burning fossil fuel was increasing the level greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere, which in turn was warming the planet.  Even then scientific bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1PPC), and many National Academies of Science were warning that global warming would lead to severe weather patterns, a rise in sea-levels endangering tens of millions of people living on coast lines, and cause the extinction of vast numbers of species.  Despite this clear scientific advice, the Convention members could not agree on mandatory limits to carbon emissions mainly the petrochemical, automobile, steel and utility companies had successfully lobbied the administration of President George Bush senior.

 

Everyone knows that, if mandatory limits are not set for using energy forms which are so central to modern affluence, no one will take the pain that cuts will involve.  So, for the next five years nothing happened on the regulatory front.  Finally, at the UN Climate Change Conference at Kyoto in 1997, countries, including the U.S. accepted legally binding commitments to lower their carbon emissions by 5.2% to 7% below their 1990 levels by 2012.  It took environmental, development and citizens groups to achieve this first step.  In fairness the Japanese government played a pivotal role in getting the Kyoto Protocol (KP) up and running.  Now, 13 years later it is signalling that it will not support an extension of the KP beyond 2010, even if it meant isolating itself at the UN itself. This is amazing for the country that gave birth to KP. It is also a clear breach of the multilateral process pursued by the UN in COP. Japan made the announcement before the negotiations even begun.  At the very least, this item should have been tabled for discussion at Cancun.

So, what is going on?  Many times during the past 30 years when I wanted to understand a complex issue in the justice area, I turned to the writings of  Martin Khor, currently the Director of the South Centre in Singapore.  Happily I saw on the daily schedule for November 30^th 2010,that Martin was one of the speakers at an afternoon  conference.

I was not disappointed.  In 20 minutes Martin explained the political context of Japan’s decision to abandon the Kyoto Protocol because the U.S. is not   covered by KP binding commitments.  Furthermore, Australia, New Zealand and Canada are also reluctant to commit to KP second period.  Though it supported the KP and promoted it for over a decade, the EU is also lukewarm towards KP.  This means that Norway is the only rich country ready to stand firmly behind KP.  Understandably, Southern countries are unhappy that rich countries, which have enjoyed a high standard of living historically because of its use of fossil fuel in the 20^th century, are now trying to wriggle out of legally, binding commitments.

 

The US, the biggest polluter by far, isn’t covered by KP. In the Copenhagen Accord it agreed to make a pledge to reduce GHG emission so that the average global temperature will not exceed 2 degrees Celsius.  In a Climate Policy Brief which Martin Khor distributed he quotes “top scientists in a new UN Environment Programme (UNEP) which shows how disastrously off target a voluntary system will be. “instead of cutting their emissions by at least 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 as required (or below 40% as demanded by developing countries), rich countries will actually increase their emissions by 6% in a good scenario (based on upper end pledges and without the use of loopholes.”

According to the UNEP report, when the GHG emissions from developing countries are add to the figures from the above pledges, it will give rise to an average increase in global temperatures of between 2.5 to 5 degrees Celsius before 2,100.  This is a recipe for catastrophe.  Cancun is a vital cross roads. Either we  continue down the KP road of mandatory, legally binding GHG reductions to be completed in 2012 in Durban, or we take the soft option of  mere pledges which will lead to disaster.

South Centre website www.twnside.org.sg