New Internationalist Magazine 419 - Climate Justice

8/14/2019 New Internationalist Magazine 419 - Climate Justice

1/9

NI 419JAN/FEB 2009

UK 3.95 IRELAND 5.00AUSTRALIA $9.50 (inc GST)

NEW ZEALAND/AOTEAROA $7.50CANADA & US $6.95

3


2/9

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has asked,provoking a furious debate online. I've been hearing suchrumblings a lot lately. The financial meltdown has certainlyeclipsed climate change as the crisis du jour: and if last month's

UN climate talks in Poznan were anything to go by, it's makingit even harder to get progress from governments that is anythingother than cheap and half-hearted.

This is a most dangerous state of affairs. It's like finding outthat you've got cancer, but then delaying going to the doctor's fortreatment for a few months because you want to repaint yourhouse. No doubt your house needs a lot of work, but ultimatelythere's little point if you won't be around to enjoy it.

Stopping climate change must be our number one priority and this is the main theme of this month's magazine. But how wego about it goes hand in hand with the task of rebuilding a fairereconomy, as we highlight in the 'Clean Start' special feature. Thesame crushing injustices that triggered the financial collapse

have been driving global warming. Now, suddenly, we have anopportunity to change the system. Can we seize it?

With this in mind, the NI held a 'Clean Start' event on 15December. Speakers included NI contributors Walden Bello andSusan George, and the lively discussion ranged from how we gotinto this global mess, through specific policies that would put uson a fairer greener path, to how we build a movement to make it

happen. Don't worry if you missed it you can watch clips of allthe speakers on our website.

The stakes couldn't be higher. I urge you to get involved, at:www.newint.org/cleanstart

JANUARY/FEBRUARY ISSUE 419

4 Stopping climate change will involve reversingsome fundamental injustices, arguesJess Worth.

8

9 Yang Ailun and David Spratt on why politicians are failing.

JESS

HURD

/repor

tdigita

l.co.u

k

REINHARD

KRAUSE

/REUTERS

STUART

FREEDMAN

/PANOS

24In Brazil,communities areforging their ownsolutions, reportsLucia Ortiz.

26

10Sunita Narain looks tothe environmentalism ofthe poor for answers.

12

14

Patrick Bond foreseesa rocky future forcarbon trading.

16

Activists NnimmoBassey and MelEvans report from thefrontline.

18Apocalyptic comedyfrom cartoonistStephanie McMillan.

19Danny Chivers surveysthe options for theCopenhagen climate

talks in 2009, and asks ifthey can deliver climatejustice.

27How the financial, social andenvironmental crises collide the opportunities and the dangers.Susan George and Walden Belloget the debate going.

29David Ransom examines theimpact so far on the MajorityWorld.

E

LIEGE

FANTE

/FOE

BRAZIL

Jess Worth for theNew Internationalist Co-operative


3/9

Climate change is causing human suffering all over the world,due to rising sea-levels, extreme weather events, water andfood shortages, and disease.

The World Health Organization estimated that in 2000 climatechange was causing 150,000 deaths worldwide4 from malaria,malnutrition, diarrhoea and flooding. This conservative estimate isequivalent to a 9/11 attack every week.

'Natural' disasters are increasing in frequency and severity.5

Sincethe mid-1970s, storms of the force of Hurricane Katrina have

almost doubled.6

An estimated 90% of all those killed and 98% of thoseaffected by natural disasters live in Asia and Africa. Developingcountries are most at risk because they lack the resources andcapacity to prevent or mitigate the worst effects. 5

Between 1996 and 2005, disasters caused $667 billionin directlosses to people worldwide. Losses were 20 times greater indeveloping countries.5

Rising world food prices caused in part by climate change and

expanded biofuel production led to food riots and protests inmore than 50 countries between January 2007 and July 2008.7

The decade of 1998-2007 was the warmest on record. The

top 11 warmest years all occurred in the past 13 years.2

This warming is being caused by human activity, primarilythe burning of fossil fuels.In order to avoid a catastrophic rise of6oC by the end of thecentury, global emissions need to have peaked by 2015 andreduce by at least 80% by 2050.

AUSTRALASIAIn Canberra wildfires killed 4 in January 2003.Since 2003, Australia has been undergoingits worst drought on record, with many citiesfacing severe water shortages and crops andfarms affected.

NORTH AMERICAIn 2005 Hurricane Katrinahit the US Gulf Coast causing1,836 deaths. CARIBBEAN

In April 2008, a week ofprotests and riots in Haiti overrising food prices left at least fivepeople dead and 200 injured.

LATIN AMERICAIn October 2005 Hurricane Stanhit Guatemala, Mexico, El Salvador,Nicaragua and Costa Rica, causingmore than 1,500 deaths.

AFRICAFloods in Mozambiquein February/March 2000killed several thousands.In September 2007torrential rain triggeredflash floods across Africa,affecting over a millionpeople in 22 countries.

The heavy rains destroyedthousands of acres ofland and prompted anoutbreak of cholera, whichkilled at least 68 people.

ARCTICThe thawing of the Arctic permafrost is affecting thetraditional way of life of its indigenous people, makinghunting and travelling difficult and dangerous.

EUROPEThe 2003 heatwave killed approximately 35,000 peoplefrom nine countries.In summer 2007, Britain suffered widespread floodingfollowing one of the wettest months on record. It caused$4 billion worth of damage and prompted the biggestrescue effort in peacetime Britain.

PACIFIC ISLANDSThe low-lying islandof Tuvalu has alreadyevacuated 3,000 of itsinhabitants to NewZealand.The 2,500 residents ofthe Carteret Islands arebeing forced to relocateto nearby Bougainville astheir island disappearsunder the waves.

ASIAIn India a record 944 mm ofrainfall in Mumbai in July 2005claimed over 1,000 lives.Cyclone Nargis ripped acrossBurma in May 2008 killing anestimated 150,000 and severelyaffecting 2.4 million.

CLIMATE JUSTICETHE FACTSIt's the poorest of the poor in the world, and thisincludes poor people even in prosperous societies, whoare going to be the worst hit.1

Rajendra Pachauri, Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

CLIMATE CHANGE ISHAPPENING NOW

WHO IS BEING AFFECTED?

GLOBAL GREENHOUSEGAS EMISSIONS BY SECTOR3

Forestry17.4%

Industry

19.4%

Transport

13.1%

Waste andwastewater2.8%

Residential andcommercial buildings 7.9%

Energysupply25.9%

Agriculture13.5%

N E W I N T E R N A T I O N A L I S T J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 9

G M B A K A S H

SATAPORN

THONGM

A

/GREENPEACE


4/9

Today, renewable energy sources account for only 13% ofthe worlds energy use. As much as 80% of energy still comesfrom fossil fuels, and the remaining 7% from nuclear power.

In one day, the sunlight that reaches the earth provides

enough energy to satisfy the world's current powerrequirements for 8 years although only a percentage of thatpotential is technically accessible.Current wind, wave, solar andgeothermal technologies couldprovide six times more power thanthe world currently uses.

Unless urgent action is taken now, the worldfaces terrifying consequences.

MIGRATIONAt least 250 million people will be forced toleave their homes between now and 2050.12

HUNGER AND THIRST3

By 2020, up to 250 millionpeople inAfrica and 77

million inSouth Americawill be under increased waterstress where supplies nolonger meet demand.By 2025 tens of millionsmore will go hungry due tolow crop yields and risingglobal food prices. 49 millionpeople are at risk of hungerby 2020 in Asia alone. Foodcrop yields in some Africancountries could decline byas much as 50% by 2020.

Just 23 rich countries, home to only 14% of the world'spopulation, have produced 60% of the world's carbonemissions since 1850. Today they produce 40% of the world'stotal. Despite committing to reduce annual emissions tobelow 1990 levels by 2012, their collective emissions arecontinuing to rise.9

1 BBC News, 'Billions face climate change risk', 6 April 2007, tinyurl.com/5fzkur 2 World Meteorological Organization,'Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years', 13 December 2007. 3 Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC), Fourth Assessment Report, 2007, www.ipcc.ch 4 World Health Organization, 'Climate andhealth fact sheet', July 2005, tinyurl.com/5fnu4m 5 Ronald Parker, 'Development Actions and the Rising Incidenceof Disasters', World Bank Independent Evaluation Group, June 2007. 6 K. Emanuel, 'Increasing destructiveness oftropical cyclones over the past 30 years',Nature 436, 2005. 7 Joachim von Braun, 'Responding to the world food crisis',International Food Policy Research Institute, 2008. 8 Carbon Dioxide Information Analyisis Center, cdiac.oml.gov9 World Resources Institute, 'Climate Analysis Indicators Tool 5.0', 2008, www.cait.wri.org 10 Tao Wang and Jim Watson,'Who Owns Chinas Carbon Emissions?', Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, October 2007 . 11 Based on

figures from CIA World Factbook, tinyurl.com/3d6bhw and Energy Information Administration, tinyurl.com/yoxmh812 Dr Norman Myers, quoted in 'Human Tide: The real migration crisis,' Christian Aid, May 2007 13 Christian Aid, 'TheClimate of Poverty: Facts, fears and hope', May 2006. 14 DFID, submission to the Stern Enquiry into Climate Ch angeand Developing Countries, Nov 2005. 15 Anwar Ali, Vulnerability of Bangladesh Coastal Region to Climate Changewith Adaptation Options, 1999. 16 James Hansen, Testimony to the Select Committee on Energy Independence andGlobal Warming, US House of Representatives, 26 April 2007. 17 All figures taken from G reenpeace, 'Energy[r]evolution: a sustainable global energy outlook', 2008, tinyurl.com/6fdqgy

DEATH FROM DISEASEBy 2085 an estimated 220-400

million more people will be at riskfrom malaria, and 3.5 billion fromdengue fever.3

Some 182 million people insub-Saharan Africa alone coulddie of disease directly attributableto climate change by the end of thecentury.13

SPECIES LOSS3

Approximately a third of allspecies will be committed toextinction by 2050.

RISING SEA-LEVELSSea-levels are set to rise dramatically. If wecontinue 'business as usual' we are likely tosee a rise of at least 1-2 metres this century,possibly much more.13

A 1 metre rise would displace 10 millionpeople in Vietnam and 8-10 million inEgypt.The number of Africans at risk of coastalflooding will rise from 1 million in 1990 to70 million by 2080.14

In Bangladesh, flood damage has becomemore extreme in the past 20 years. By 2100,predicted ocean rises threaten to submerge18% of the country, creating 35 millionenvironmental refugees.15

During the Pliocene period, when the worldwas 2oCto3oC warmer, sea-levels were 25metres higher. About 1 billion people livewithin a 25-metre rise in todays sea-level,including many US East Coast cities and areasoccupied by more than 250 million peoplein China.16

In 2007 China overtook the US as the world's biggest emitter.Around 23% of Chinese carbon dioxide emissions in 2004 were due toproducts produced for export to richer countries. This is comparable to Japan'stotal CO2 emissions, and is more than double Britains emissions in the same year.

10A US citizen emits seven times as much in a year as an Ethiopian does ina lifetime.11

China

6

2

4

0

USRussia

IndiaJapan

GermanyCanada

UK

2007 carbon emissionsper person8

Tonnesofcarbon

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

FUTURE SCENARIOS

SOLUTIONS17

N E W I N T E R N A T I O N A L I S T J A N U A RY / F E B R U A RY 2 0 0 9

Carbon emissions1900-20048

RUPAK

DE

CHOWDHURI/REUTERS

D A N I E L B E L T R A / G R E E N P E A C E


5/9

N EW I N T ER NA T I L I S T J A NU A RY /F EB U A RY 2 0 0 9

The Same BoatImagine 10 rabbits lost at sea, in a boat carved out of agiant carrot.

e carrot is their only source of food, so they all keep

nibbling at it. e boat is shrinking rapidly but none of themwants to be the first to stop, because then theyll be the first tostarve. eres no point in any of them stopping unless everyonestops if even one rabbit carries on eating, the boat will sink.

is is the international climate crisis in a (Beatrix Potter-flavoured) nutshell: action by individual nations achieves littleunless we all act together. Of course, reality is a little more complex.While its easy to imagine the rabbits reaching a simple agreementwhere they all learn to dredge for seaweed instead, our situationinvolves massive global inequalities, diering levels of responsibility,and a history of exploitation and broken international promises.

Perhaps, then, we shouldnt be too surprised that theinternational climate negotiations which began in earnest in1990 with the talks that created the UN Framework Conventionon Climate Change (UNFCCC) have not yet got us a workableglobal solution. e best weve managed so far has been the 1997Kyoto Protocol, under which industrialized nations (knownas Annex 1 countries) pledged to cut their CO2 emissions by acompletely inadequate 5.2 per cent by 2012. e US famouslypulled out of the deal, and most of those who remained in areunlikely to achieve even these small cuts.

A Fair PointMeanwhile, no definite plan has been agreed for ensuring thatthe poorer nations switch to a climate-friendly development path.e US says it wont play unless, in the name of fairness, all

non-Annex 1 countries also take on emissions reduction targets.Southern governments, however, point out that theyve arrivedlate to the fossil fuel party: the industrialized nations got us intothis mess by emitting, over the past 200 years, the vast majorityof the greenhouse gases currently warming up the atmosphere.How can the Annex 1 countries demand that the South restrictits development with tough carbon targets when the North hasmostly missed its own Kyoto goals?

At the same time, despite promised funds to support low-carbon development, to adapt to the impacts of climate change,and to transfer to low-carbon technology, the only real moneyflowing from North to South through the UNFCCC processhas been via the highly flawed Clean Development Mechanism(CDM). is has allowed wealthy nations to offset theirdomestic emissions with such clean development projects asurban landfill sites, giant dams that were being built anyway,and slightly more efficient steel refineries. ere are nownear-universal calls for the CDM to be reformed, or scrappedaltogether and replaced with something fairer.

COP a Load of ThisWith Kyoto limping to the end of its life, governments arefeverishly trying to strike a new deal on global emissions cutsbetween 2012 and 2020. eyll be thrashing it out in meetings

in Bonn in April and June, with the aim of signing an agreementat the next big Conference Of Parties (COP) Copenhagen,1-12 December 2009.

Efforts have been focused on getting the US responsiblefor 30 per cent of current emissions to sign up. But a dealthat favours the interests of wealthy nations over the realneeds of the worlds people would fail on two crucial counts.e expanded carbon market demanded by the US and theEU would enrich private traders at the expense of lives andlivelihoods in the South; meanwhile, any deal without a strongjustice element would almost certainly be rejected by manySouthern governments.

Poorer nations have fought bitterly to enshrine a right todevelopment and an acknowledgement of countries commonbut differentiated responsibilities within Kyoto, which meansthat richer countries are expected to act first. Unless theAnnex 1 countries start showing real commitment to theseprinciples through deep domestic emissions cuts, strings-free funding, technology transfer and development allowances the chances of the South staying on board with a post-2012deal are slim.1

Talking It UpUnfortunately, the trend has so far been in the oppositedirection. As the climate talks have progressed from Toronto(1988) to Kyoto (1997) to Bali (2007), the rich countries targets

have been weakened by around 1,900 million tonnes of CO2, andthe role of carbon trading has grown steadily.2For example, a major subject at the recent Poznan talks was

the REDD initiative (Reduced Emissions from Deforestationand Degradation), which proposes that the carbon stored in theworlds forests be added to the carbon market.3 In one fell swoop,forest lands where people have lived for thousands of years wouldbe commodified and sold from beneath them, generating creditsto allow wealthy Northerners to carry on driving and shopping despite the fact that new research has revealed that recognizingindigenous forest peoples land rights would cost less and be moreeffective than using the carbon markets.4

The next three pages look at how some of the main proposalson the table measure up when it comes to climate justice.

Just or bust


6/9


Grandfatheringof Kyoto TargetsWHAT IS IT?A delightfully twee name for the way industrializedcountries emissions targets have been allocated through the UNFCCC everyone has to reduce their emissions a certain percentage below

the amount they were emitting in 1990.

FAIRNESS: 2/10Countries that were big polluters in 1990get to stay as big polluters, with a slight percentage cut. A fairersystem would instead be based upon per capita emissions(such as the Contraction and Convergence model championedby the Global Commons Institute), historical responsibility foremissions, and/or ability to pay.

EFFECTIVENESS: 2/10The 1990 baseline is completelyarbitrary, with no relation to climate science.

CURRENT SUPPORT: 10/10The EU is proposing a newtarget of a 30% emissions cut by 2020 for Annex 1 countries.

The coalition of Least Developed

Countries (LDCs) has said it wouldprefer that to be a 45-50% cut. Bothof these targets are against the 1990baseline its just being taken forgranted. Alternative ideas such asContraction and Convergence aresometimes discussed, but notacted upon.

ITS A BIT LIKEA group of wealthytourists and destitute refugees havesurvived a plane crash and are stranded on amountain. They decide to ration out the foodbased on how much each person ate in theweek before the crash the more you ate per

day back then, the more food you get now.

Global Commons Institute:www.gci.org.uk

1. For Copenhagen

Whats on

GreenhouseDevelopment Rights (GDRs)WHAT IS IT?An alternative method for setting carbon targets. It assumes that everyoneon the planet below a certain income threshold should first have the right to get themselvesout of poverty and are therefore exempt from any emissions targets. Responsibility forclimate action is then allocated to countries based on how many of their citizens are abovethe income threshold, how far above it they are, and how much greenhouse gas that countryproduces.

FAIRNESS: 8/10 Includes an explicit right to develop for the worlds poor

(North and South), while ensuring that wealthy Southern lites are not excludedfrom responsibility. However, it doesnt acknowledge historical responsibility or theoffshoring of emissions by wealthier countries, and there are many potential devilslurking in the details such as how to set the income threshold.

EFFECTIVENESS: 9/10 The targets within the framework are based on up-to-dateclimate science, and if they were met it would give us a decent shot at avoiding theworst stuff.

CURRENT SUPPORT: 4/10 Some G77 governments have talked about it, andits gained the backing of Christian Aid and Oxfam, but as yet has no official positionwithin the UNFCCC process.

ITS A BIT LIKEA city is razed to the ground by alien invaders. The people who escapedunscathed because they lived in solid houses built from money they stole from the aliens

(thus provoking the attack) are expected to take on most of the rebuilding work. The peoplewho had left the aliens alone, stayed poor, and lived in rickety houses that collapsed on themduring the attack are allowed to recover in hospital before joining in the work.

www.ecoequity.org

ORIN

LANGELLE

/GLOBAL

JUSTICE

ECOLOGY

PROJECT

GLOBAL

FORE

ST

COALITION


7/9

N E W I N T E R N A T I O N A L I S T J A N U A RY / F E B R U A RY 2 0 0 9

Kyoto2WHAT IS IT? A new proposal, where companies wishing to drill for oil or gasor dig up coal would have to purchase permits. These permits would be tightlyrestricted, and fall each year in line with the demands of climate science. Themoney from the permit sale would go into a global fund to protect forests, payfor adaptation measures, create a revolution in sustainable technology and helppoorer communities make the transition to a low-carbon world.

FAIRNESS: 7/10The polluters pay, and the money goes to the peopleand places that need it. All pretty good so long as the poor are protectedfrom sudden fuel price rises, and the institutions charged with distributingthe funds (Oliver Tickell, who developed the proposal, suggests UN

agencies and NGOs) do so in a transparent and accountable way thatactively includes the affected communities.

EFFECTIVENESS: 8/10 It looks good on paper, and is based on solidclimate science. However, we all know how adept fossil fuel companies areat finding loopholes

CURRENT SUPPORT: 1/10This new proposal would involvetotally changing the terms of the international negotiations, shifting theresponsibility from countries to corporations (including a lot of state-owned companies). Will it be seen as a distraction from the main debate,a Northern-biased proposal that doesnt explicitly recognize historicalresponsibility, or a neat way out of the current deadlock?

ITS A BIT LIKEThat moment near the end of a meeting where someone

suggests an interesting new idea that might make the previous four hours ofdiscussion completely irrelevant, and you dont know whether to shake theirhand or throw the water jug at them.

www.kyoto2.org

EmissionsTradingWHAT IS IT? Its the main way in whichwealthy industrialized countries areplanning to meet their reduction targets by trading carbon credits (permits topollute) with other countries. Forests are dueto be added to the scheme at Copenhagen.

FAIRNESS: 1/10The systemallows polluting industries and

governments to buy their way outof their carbon commitments, usingcomplex trading rules written byNorthern economists. Private tradingfirms get rich by buying and sellingthe rights to the carbon in otherpeoples forests and fields, investingin dodgy quick-fixes and proppingup polluting industries.

EFFECTIVENESS: 2/10 The EUEmissions Trading Scheme has yetto produce any proven emissions

reductions. Wealthy governmentsand companies can avoid difficult-but-vital domestic emissions cutsby buying (both real and imaginary)carbon reductions from elsewhere.Politicians get an excuse not tostump up desperately neededcash for more effective low-carbondevelopment in the Global South.

MAD, BAD, ANDDANGEROUS EFFECTS:8/10 Want to unleash a geneticallymodified carbon-munching microbe,create a famine-inducing agro-fuel

plantation, privatize a forest or builda few nuclear power stations? Thecarbon market is the place for you!

CURRENT SUPPORT: 9.5/10Unless we decide to stop it.

ITS A BIT LIKE Handing control of theEarths vital natural systems over to a bunchof grinning Wall Street traders. Oh no, wait:its exactly like that.

www.carbontradewatch.org

www.thecornerhouse.org.uk

Mitigation andAdaptation FundsWHAT IS IT? The G77 (a coalition of, confusingly, about 130 developingcountries) and China are proposing that the wealthiest countries put the climatechange support money theyve been promising (for years) into a central fund forspending on low-carbon technology, emission reductions and climate changeadaptation in the Global South.5

FAIRNESS: 7/10 Putting it into a central fund has pros and cons:paying it straight to governments instead could lead to corruption andsquandering on unhelpful projects, but the central fund takes the decision

even further away from those affected by it.

EFFECTIVENESS: 5/10 Will the funds be spent on effective projectssuch as protecting the land rights of indigenous forest people, or onexpensive distractions like nuclear power?

CURRENT SUPPORT: 7/10The wealthy nations are going to haveto hand something over if they dont want the talks to collapse completely.

ITS A BIT LIKE The guy who drove a bulldozer through your house andsold off the rubble has promised to buy you a tent in compensation. As a hugestorm gathers on the horizon, you post him another stiff reminder letter.

the table?


8/9


Government-FundedClimate ProgrammesWHAT IS IT? Publicly funded schemes to tackle climate change from revampedpublic transport networks to mass home insulation to giant offshore wind farms.

FAIRNESS: 5/10 Depends on how much you trust your government.Publicly owned climate solutions are more accountable to the people theyaffect than corporate or consumer-driven solutions (in democratic states, atleast). However, theres also plenty of scope for corruption and the siphoningof public funds into expensive solutions that benefit wealthy lites ratherthan the climate.

EFFECTIVENESS: 5/10 Utterly dependent on the details. However,there are some things, such as legislating against corporate polluters,and reforming national transport and energy networks, that people andcommunity groups cannot do alone, and governments will need to play anactive role.

CURRENT SUPPORT: 6/10There are positive examples out there(such as Germanys big renewables roll-out), but they are often cancelledout by the simultaneous development of roads, runways and fossil fuelpower stations.

ITS A BIT LIKEAsking a big kid you dont really like or trust to chase awaysome bullies for you.

Carbon TaxesWHAT IS IT? A government tax on sources ofcarbon pollution.

FAIRNESS: 5/10Could hit the poorestin society hardest through higher fuelprices, unless it were carefully designed.

Taxes on companies producing orburning fossil fuels could be fairer, if thosecompanies were prevented from passingthose costs on to others. British Columbiasnew carbon tax includes a rebate for thepoorest families.

EFFECTIVENESS: 6/10 Sweden,Finland, the Netherlands, Denmark,Germany, Norway, Italy, and a few UStowns and counties have experimented

with carbon taxes, with mixed results. Thetaxes do seem to reduce carbon emissions,but usually on a smaller scale than washoped for often due to loopholes andconcessions demanded by industry orangry consumer groups.

CURRENT SUPPORT: 5/10 Carbontaxes are talked about within the UNFCCCprocess as a potential tool, but theyre notgenerally very popular back home.

ITS A BIT LIKE Asking a big kid you dontreally like or trust to charge the bullies 1 forevery time they thump you.

Nicola Liebert, Why Ecotaxes May Not Be The Answer,NI416, October 2008

Techno-fixes and Geo-engineeringWHAT IS IT? Examples include genetically modified algal fuel, capturing CO2 for underground storage,launching mirrors into space, discovering reliable nuclear fusion, turning food crops into agro-fuels, dumping ironin the oceans and spraying sulphates in the sky.

FAIRNESS: 1/10Most of these schemes would place disproportionate control of the global climate

in the hands of a small number of companies or governments. Imagine if the US or China had control of agiant space mirror that was the only thing preventing the world from being fried, or if Monsanto held thepatent for an algal fuel that the whole world relied upon for power. What a beautiful future wed be building.

EFFECTIVENESS: 2/10Most are more than a decade away from large-scale implementation, andwould drain resources away from proven and sustainable solutions.

MAD, BAD, AND DANGEROUS EFFECTS: 10/10Poisonous algal blooms, disruption of little-understood oceanic food webs, mass appropriation of lands, seas and forests, acid rain, sudden future CO2eruptions, and corporate control of the climate system will that do?

CURRENT SUPPORT: 7/10European governments are desperate for carbon capture to materialize.There have been pro-sulphate-spraying demonstrations in Australia. An open market in carbon emissionswould be a big boost to a lot of these wacky schemes.

ITS A BIT LIKE Your house is on fire, so you sit down in the living room and start drawing up designs for a giantwall-smashing robot.

Techno-Fixes report, Corporate Watch, www.corporatewatch.org

2. In various countriesUnderpinning the climate talks are a raft of ideas for howemissions reductions can be achieved. Here are some ofthe forerunners.

Continued on page 23


9/9

islikely to produce a similar deal to Kyoto arbitrary (though larger)targets against a 1990 baseline, perhaps giving targets to someof the larger developing countries in return for extra mitigationfunds, and with carbon trading as the main delivery mechanism.It would probably end up about as successful as Kyoto, too.

Fortunately, global dissent is growing. Large NGOs such asFriends of the Earth International, Oxfam and Christian Aidare becoming increasingly vocal on the issue of climate justice.

New networks are forming amongst Northern and Southernsocial movements to demand community-led solutions to theclimate crisis, and an end to the privatization of lands and foreststhrough carbon trading schemes.

Down with KyotoWe shouldnt get too hung up on Copenhagen were far morelikely to create lasting change by building powerful national andinternational movements than by pouring all our energy intospecific summit meetings. But its hard to deny that we needsome sort of international framework for tackling this globalissue. Despite its flaws, the UNFCCC is the only one weve got,and the urgency of the climate issue requires us to work with it.

However, the Kyoto Protocol has been a dismal failure.Should we demand that governments scrap it completely andstart again from scratch? Its tempting, but would be unlikelyto gain the crucial support of Southern negotiators, who fearthat a brand new deal would see them lose their hard-wondifferentiated responsibility.

A better approach might be to create space within the existingtalks for alternative, fairer systems and ideas such as GDRs,Kyoto2, community-led solutions, indigenous rights, strings-free

clean development assistance, patent-free technology transfer toget a hearing. Currently emissions trading, private financing andmarket-based mechanisms are seen as the only route to greenhousegas reductions, and are crowding everything else out of the debate.

is suggests a simple, effective starting point for developinga successful and just global agreement: we need to get rid ofcarbon trading.

Just: do itMany groups and movements could happily unite around a majorcampaign to discredit the carbon markets. However, this needsto start now. e massive protests planned for Copenhagen willbe too late to have much effect on the talks (unless things havegone so badly that they need to be shut down!)

Lets face it whatever gets agreed at Copenhagen, governmentsare unlikely to stick to it unless there is an international movementpowerful enough to make it happen. A global climate treaty willnever be a panacea, but we can at least make sure its a step towards rather than away from climate justice.

Danny Chivers is a writer, researcher, activist and poet on all things climate-change related.

A longer version of this article, with more details about the different proposals on thetable at Copenha gen is available at http://adaisythroughconcrete.blogspot.com

1 T Roberts & B Parks, A Climate Of Injustice, MIT Press 2007 2 Diana Liverman, Survivalinto the Future in the Face of Climate Change in E Shuckburgh (ed.), Survival: e Survivalof the Human Race (2006 Darwin Lectures), Cambridge University Press, 2007 3 See:thereddsite.wordpress.com 4e Guardian, Pay indigenous people to protect rainforests,conservation groups urge, 17 October 2008, w ww.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/17/forests-endangeredhabitats 5 Financial Mechanism for Meeting Financial Commitmentsunder the Convention. Proposal by the G77 and China to the Poznan meeting.

The road ahead

SUPRISUPRI/REUTERS

Documents

New Internationalist Magazine 419 - Climate Justice