A better world is possible - Global Commons Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Copyright Bruce Nixon 2010. All rights reserved. This electronic copy is provided free for personal, non-commercial use only. www.brucenixon.com Development debt of developed nations The essential difficulty was the failure of “developed nations” to recognise their “development debt” to the rest of the world and the latter’s insistence that its development prospects should not be damaged by the payback costs of the ecological damage caused by Western development over the past 200 years. Mo Ibrahim, Sudanese-born entrepreneur, was quoted in James Robertson’s Newsletter January 2010 as saying: “Africans account for 13 per cent of the world’s population and are responsible for less than 4 per cent of carbon emissions. That is our carbon credit. It is the only basis for any carbon trading that makes sense." The Copenhagen Accord recognised the scientific case for keeping temperature rises below 2c, but does not include the commitments necessary to achieve that aim. The agreement pledges US$ 30 billion over the next three years, rising to US$100 billion per year by 2020, to help poor countries adapt to climate change. Under the Accord developed countries also offer to pay them to reduce their emissions from deforestation and degradation, under a scheme known as "REDD". A Copenhagen Green Climate Fund would be established "to support projects, programme, policies and other activities in developing countries related to mitigation". The Accord called for "an assessment of the implementation of this Accord to be completed by 2015 including consideration of strengthening the long-term goal", for example, to limit temperature rises to 1.5 degrees. The Accord was only “noted” by 110 remaining, many of whom were outraged by its inadequacies and the exclusive process by which it was reached. Amongst these are those nations likely to be worst affected and least able to pay for the necessary technological measures needed to reduce climate change, largely caused by the richest nations, or to mitigate the consequences. Climate Scoreboard estimates that business as usual will lead to a 4.8c rise in temperatures and the Accord proposals 3.9c. Others say we’ll be condemned to an average temperature rise of 3c to 3.5c. As these are global averages, some countries will face far greater increases. Unless further action is rapidly implemented, vast areas of the world will become uninhabitable with easily imagined consequences. When the whole of humanity is in a situation of extreme peril and action is urgently needed, this was an astonishing though predictable result. Essentially most countries put their short –term national interests ahead of the long-term future well-being of the entire planet. “Peak Everything” However, it is not only climate change and Peak Oil that threaten the future of humanity. Natural gas is probably 10 to 15 years away from a peak. Phosphorous and potash are starting to fail to keep up with growing human demand. Fish are under extreme pressure. All the provisions of nature are in decline whilst our population and demands are increasing. We must rapidly move away from endless growth and consumption. We need a complete change in our values and personal identities. Our children and future generations will suffer dreadfully. We need a forum to address “Peak Everything” says Ian Christie. Bold action by governments is needed to redirect economic activity and manage the necessary transition towards prosperity without growth. Only governments can institute the national and international measures needed to provide the necessary direction and framework for business corporations. That is exactly what USA and Britain rapidly did in WW2. It led to an almost overnight redirection of manufacturing from peacetime production to the war effort. We need this now! On the positive side, COP 15 was clearly an important step. For the first time representatives of 193 nations, including 110 world leaders, met with climate change as the single issue. Climate change has clearly become central to the political thinking of almost every country. Public awareness has massively increased. Green Growth has got into the prevailing economic talk, though not the need for steady state economics on a finite 196
Copyright Bruce Nixon 2010. All rights reserved. This electronic copy is provided free for personal, non-commercial use only. www.brucenixon.com planet. However it is barely mentioned by political leaders in the current campaign for the UK parliamentary elections. In the run up to Copenhagen, there had been major campaigns around the world by NGOs, governments and large corporations and many governments announced substantial low-carbon measures. These will continue. The European Union has set an example by committing to implementing binding legislation, despite no satisfactory deal at Copenhagen. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the US-backed climate deal in Copenhagen as an "essential beginning". But he said the Accord must be made legally binding in 2010. The International Institute for Environment and Development report described it as “an open space waiting to be filled in”. A summary of the Accord is available on Wiki. The weaknesses of the accord Earlier proposals, aimed to limit temperature rises to 1.5c and cut CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050, were dropped. Many countries were prepared to co-operate, but not under the threat of legal sanctions. There is no quantified aggregate target for emissions reduction such as the 50% by 2050 in early drafts. Countries are to be assessed globally. But no verification measures will take place in the developing world unless paid for by the developed world. There is very little detail. The Accord relies on the implementation of national strategies within a policy framework with a progress review planned for 2015. Perhaps that is the most pragmatic way forward. But as countries will be free to make their own different pledges, it is unlikely that the necessary limitation to global warming will be achieved. As said above, so a temperature limitation of 3c or now seems more likely. Some fear the rise will be 6c which will be disastrous. The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) say, the Accord does propose short-term funding for adaptation in vulnerable countries but lacks essential details such as where the funds will come from and whether they will be loans or grants; the target figure of US$30 billion over three years from 2010 to 2013 is not adequate for 100 vulnerable countries with about one billion citizens. Tellingly, this is about the same amount that JP Morgan Chase bank will spend on salaries and bonuses in the current year. The long-term finance of US$100 billion a year by 2020 that developed countries pledged to mobilise jointly to address the needs of developing countries, does not say how much of this money would be allocated for adaptation in vulnerable countries (as opposed to mitigation actions in less vulnerable countries such as India and China). Moreover, this amount is just half of what vulnerable countries need to adapt in the long term. The Accord makes no special provisions regarding technology transfer for the vulnerable developing countries. Reactions Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, the Sudanese negotiator, said the accord spelled "incineration" for Africa and compared it to the Nazis sending 6 million people into furnaces in the Holocaust. About 50,000 environmental activists from regions of the world most affected by climate change convened Klimaforum09, simultaneously with COP15, with leaders such as Dr Vandana Shiva and author Naomi Klein. A People's Declaration formulated at the People's Climate Summit and signed by nearly 300 civil society organisations calling for "System change - not climate change" was handed over to the Conference on December 18. This declaration opened thus: 197
Page 1 and 2:
Copyright Bruce Nixon 2010. All rig
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146: Copyright Bruce Nixon 2010. All rig
Page 195: Copyright Bruce Nixon 2010. All rig
Page 211: Copyright Bruce Nixon 2010. All rig
show all

A better world is possible - Global Commons Institute

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?