|
OUR VIEWPOINT
- The changes necessary to change the climate
change negotiations
When a house is burning
down, the important thing is to put out the fire. Although
the neighbours might be able to help, the fire brigade is
expected to manage operations. We expect the State to provide
the necessary support to put out the fire. Once it is out,
experts will establish the causes of the fire and, in the
event of arson, the perpetrators will be held responsible
and duly punished in accordance with the law. But first the
fire needs to be put out.
The results of global
warming are very similar to those of a fire, but the process
leading to it has been the reverse. In this case, the causes
of the fire are already known (the burning of fossil fuels)
and those responsible for starting it are also known (the
industrialized countries). However the fire-fighters are nowhere
to be seen and the government representatives are busily negotiating
deals –business deals- while the flames spread with
increasing speed.
The saddest part is that
for years now we have known how to put the fire out: by stopping
the burning of fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas). Although
there are other factors that aggravate climate change –
such as deforestation – in fact burning fossil fuels
is the only source of greenhouse gases that is increasing.
It is the central cause of global warming. The solution is
there for all to see and all efforts should be aimed at replacing
fossil fuels by other sources of energy.
The use of fossil fuels
started with the Industrial Revolution and was globalized
through the economic development model imposed worldwide by
the industrialized countries. As a result, the total
stock of greenhouse gases in the biosphere has constantly
increased, resulting in climate change. It is therefore clear
that these industrialized countries are mainly responsible
for the present “fire” and consequently must take
on the corresponding responsibility and adopt the necessary
measures to halt the process.
In this respect, the first
step must be for industrialized countries to introduce drastic
changes to the production and use of energy at a national
level, leading to the urgent replacement of fossil fuels by
other sources of energy within a clearly established time
frame. Such measures should include transnational corporations,
imposing on them the same restrictions regarding the production
and use of energy in their operations around the world as
those applied in their countries of origin.
Linked to the above, those
who are mainly responsible for climate change must commit
themselves not to “export” the problem to other
countries, as is currently the case with agrofuels, which
are produced at the expense of the resources and welfare of
the inhabitants of the countries of the South.
At the same time, those
mainly responsible for climate change must generate the appropriate
conditions – including economic and technical assistance
– to enable non-industrialized countries to pursue a
path of development that is free from fossil fuels. (But not
through fraudulent schemes such as the Clean Development Mechanism
that allow the North to continue polluting.)
More specifically, the
countries responsible for climate change should provide economic
compensation to those countries committing themselves not
to exploit their fossil fuel deposits. Given the debt that
the North has generated to the rest of the world, because
of its negative impact on the climate, this is only fair.
However, this does not
imply that the other countries – the “neighbours”
– cannot contribute to putting out the “fire.”
This goes, to some extent, beyond North-South divisions. The
present economic development model, which has been imposed
all over the world, is totally reliant on the burning of fossil
fuels. This implies that every country, without exception,
must make the utmost effort to eradicate their use.
Of course, there is a
“right to development”, as some governments of
Southern countries argue. But this right cannot be exercised
at the cost of the planet’s climate that belongs to
everyone. This means that although such countries do not have
the historic responsibility for climate change – nor
the obligations this involves – they must recognize
the need to adopt measures to replace fossil fuels by other
alternative energies as soon as possible.
The issue of replacing
fossil fuels should be the centre of the forthcoming UN climate
negotiations that will take place in Copenhagen in December.
Unfortunately, it is extremely unlikely that this will happen.
On the contrary, it seems extremely likely that the discussions
will focus on a number of absurd “solutions”.
Instead of solving the problem these “solutions”
will only make it worse.
Much will be said about
market mechanisms for reducing emissions from deforestation,
agriculture and cattle-raising. There will also be much talk
about plantations as carbon sinks, about agrofuels, about
carbon trade and about a recent invention known as “biochar.”
But very little will be said – and as little as possible
negotiated – on the central issue: the eradication of
fossil fuels.
Many years have gone by
since 1992 when governments committed to do something about
the Earth’s climate by adopting the UN Convention on
Climate Change. Since then, however, they have achieved little
or nothing. At this stage, it is more than obvious that they
are not willing to do much. But things could change if the
“neighbourhood” –the peoples of the world–
force their governments to adopt immediately measures to put
out the “fire.”
Therefore we hope that
the coordinated efforts of organized civil society from all
over the world will directly and indirectly put pressure on
government delegates in Copenhagen. We hope that they will
be effective in forcing the necessary change in course. This
is not a simple fire: the future of humanity is at stake.
We all have the right and the duty to demand that what needs
to be done is done. Now!
index
REDD ALARM
- Greenwashing the green
desert in Copenhagen
It seems increasingly
likely that no binding deal will come out of Copenhagen and
that the North will attempt to scrap the Kyoto Protocol. It
also seems likely that some sort of deal will be pushed through
on reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
(REDD). There is a serious danger that REDD will act as greenwash
for the North's failure to reduce emissions dramatically.
REDD could generate a massive land grab, it could pour money
into some of the most corrupt governments and forestry ministries
in the world, it could trample on indigenous peoples' and
local communities' rights, it could accelerate conversion
of forests to plantations and it could create a massive loophole
allowing pollution in the North to continue. All the while
allowing deforestation to continue.
But with or without a
REDD deal, the UN climate negotiations have already caused
serious problems for people and forests, through the Clean
Development Mechanism's support of industrial tree plantations.
“CDM fraud at its worst,” as WRM described it
in August 2009.
The problem starts with
the definition of “forest”. So far, there is no
agreed definition of forest in the REDD negotiations, but
under the CDM definition any area bigger than 500 square metres
with crown cover of 10 per cent and trees capable of growing
two metres high is a “forest”. Even clearcuts
are included in this definition of a “forest”.
The FAO has long supported
the myth that plantations are forests. Recently, the FAO produced
a leaflet, explaining that “Negotiations need clear
terminology”. That much is true. But the leaflet discusses
the difference between “sustainable forest management”
and “sustainable management of forests”. Needless
to say both versions of “sustainable management”
include industrial tree plantations. The FAO is institutionally
incapable of seeing the difference between a plantation and
a forest, but will pay intelligent people very comfortable
salaries to produce an analysis of the word “of”.
A look at the lending
of the International Finance Corporation, the World Bank's
lending arm to the private sector, illustrates why the definition
of forests matters. First the good news. In August 2009, World
Bank President Robert Zoellick ordered a complete moratorium
on Bank investment in oil palm plantations. The change came
after a complaint to the IFC's Compliance Advisory Ombudsman
(CAO) by a series of NGOs about the IFC's loans to palm oil
giant Wilmar.
As we're dealing with
the World Bank, it should come as no surprise that there's
also some bad news: The IFC is planning to increase lending
for non-oil palm industrial tree plantations. In October 2009,
at the World Forestry Congress in Argentina, the IFC's Mark
Constantine gave a presentation titled “Increasing Private
Sector Impact in the Forest Sector”. When Constantine
says “forest”, he also means “plantations”.
Constantine's presentation
included a section titled “What have we learned?".
But he apparently didn't mention the problems caused by Wilmar's
oil palm plantations. Nor did he mention a US$50 million loan
that the IFC gave in 2004 to the Brazilian pulp company Aracruz.
The loan was hastily repaid shortly after Aracruz and the
local police violently removed the Tupinikim and Guarani indigenous
peoples from their villages that they had reclaimed from Aracruz's
monocultures.
Among the “new approaches”
that Constantine suggested are to “Increase forest access
to carbon market” and to “Invest in plantations
and forest industries”. He talked about the need to
“Ramp up investments in forest plantations”. While
Constantine mentioned the risk of “monoculture / 'green
desert'”, this does not mean that the IFC will not be
handing out money to expand the green desert.
On 18 November 2009, the
IFC announced that it is planning to invest in 250,000 hectares
of industrial tree plantations in Indonesia. In the IFC's
press release, Adam Sack, IFC Country Manager for Indonesia
said that “This new program is part of IFC's commitment
to reducing greenhouse gas emission.” IFC states that
the plantations could cut approximately 90 million tons of
carbon emissions each year and that this supposed reduction
in emissions could be traded under the CDM.
IFC describes its proposed
projects as “reforestation” that “sequesters
carbon by removing CO2 from the atmosphere.” But it
is not reforestation – it is replacing a degraded landscape
by a monoculture. And any carbon dioxide stored in the trees
will be quickly released, when the trees are used to produce
paper or bioenergy.
When the CAO carried out
its review of IFC lending to Wilmar's palm oil plantations
in Indonesia it found that “Because commercial pressures
dominated IFC's assessment process, the result was that environmental
and social due diligence reviews did not occur as required.”
In his presentation at
the World Forestry Congress, IFC's Constantine asked “How
do we measure success?”. His answer, for plantations
was “Number of hectares in new plantations. Dollars
invested. Number of projects.” History, it seems, is
due to repeat itself.
The solution to this is
simple. The UN needs a definition of forests that excludes
plantations. Then the IFC's plans in Indonesia could be seen
for what they are. Not as “reforestation,” or
part of a “commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emission,”
but as a subsidy to the socially and environmentally destructive
plantation sector.
By Chris Lang, http://chrislang.org
index
THE COPENHAGUEN CIRCUS
- Let the show start!
According to Wikipedia,
“a circus is commonly a travelling company of performers
that may include acrobats, clowns, animals, trapeze acts,
hoopers, tightrope walkers, jugglers, unicyclists and other
stunt-oriented artists.”
Unfortunately, it has
a strong similarity with the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change where acrobats, jugglers, magicians and
trapeze acrobats have been trying to entertain the world audience
making people believe that they are seriously discussing ways
of addressing the current climate crisis.
Though originally intended
as a means of avoiding climate change, the UNFCCC original
aim was soon diverted into a corporate-led performance focused
on profit. Since then, it has travelled to a large number
of countries trying to sell its exhibitions. Next stop is
Copenhagen.
At this point in time,
when climate change is acknowledged as the main threat that
Humanity is facing, it is good to remember that traditional
circuses have been forced to introduce a number of important
changes to their performances as a result of public pressure.
We hope that this will be the case in Copenhagen.
index
-
Planting trees in the deserts
A team of biologists and
climate modellers at NASA have come up with a very “practical”
alternative to phasing out fossil fuels. Their plan is to
plant massive blocks of fast growing trees –for example
eucalyptus- in the deserts of the Sahara and Australian outback.
Lack of water? No problem! The trees would be watered by seawater
treated by a string of coastal desalination plants and channelled
through a vast irrigation network. Easy.
Such plan would of course
destroy deserts, which are not wastelands but rich and diverse
ecosystems in their own right. It completly disregards the
fundamental interdependence of all phenomena in the subtle
web of life and doesn’t even question about where, when
and how the impacts of this massive change would be felt.
The acknowledged costs of the scheme are enormous -$1.9 trillion
a year. Yet, the inventors consider “it is the most
promising and practical (!) option in terms of current technology
to solve the biggest parts of the problem."
They are aware that there
are some drawbacks, but say that "If sacrifices are required
to stem global warming, the almost non-existent ecosystems
of the central Sahara and the outback seem like reasonable
candidates compared to the alternatives." If the idea
is so “practical”, why don’t they sacrifice
“reasonable candidates” such as the abundant US
deserts, instead of those in Africa and Australia? As Alice
would say: climate solutions are getting “curiouser
and curiouser”.
Information source: Forests
in the desert: the answer to climate change?, David Adam,
www.guardian.co.uk,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/04/forests-desert-answer-climate-change
index
- Under the fancy name
of “biochar”
Some jugglers of the climate
circus are tossing up charcoal to catch it again but now with
a fancy name. The proposal of turning residues into fine-grained
charcoal and ploughing billions of tonnes of it into the soil
every year convert charcoal into “biochar”.
The charcoal is produced
through a process called pyrolysis, whereby biomass is exposed
to high temperatures in the absence of oxygen. This produces
two types of fuels in addition to the charcoal (syngas and
bio-oil), which can be used for heat and power, or further
refined into agrofuels for cars or, potentially, for aviation.
Biochar advocates say
it might “cool the planet”. Billions of tonnes
of biomass mainly from trees and crop residues would be turned
into biochar. They neglect the fact that this would require
manyfold millions of trees to be planted... Up to 1 billion
hectares of tree plantations would be needed to grow the trees
necessary for biochar production on a scale large enough to
impact climate.
Where would this major
“geo-engineering solution to global climate change”
take place? Not in the United States, nor in Europe: Africa
is a particular target for biochar.
Conveniently perceived
as a continent with abundant land available waiting for “development”,
Africa is already experiencing massive land grabbing for agrofuels
production and foreign agricultural investment. Indigenous
communities, forests, water resources and food production
have been heavily impacted by evictions, food insecurity and
land conflicts that add up to the impacts of climate change.
Though biochar is clearly
in no position to gain UNFCCC accreditation as a solution
to climate change, the atmosphere of climate urgency makes
the advocates of this reductionist tech-fix hope that their
product will be fast-tracked into the carbon market and gain
accreditation through international climate negotiations.
And the climate circus might like the product.
Information source: “Biochar
Land Grabbing: the impacts on Africa”, at
http://www.gaiafoundation.org/documents/Biochar%20Africa%20briefing.pdf
index
- A host of acrobatics:
Cloud ships, space mirrors, iron powdered seas and the like
Now come the acrobats.
The Copenhagen Consensus Centre think-tank is working hard
to weigh really true solutions to altering the alterated climate.
Let’s see.
The “cloud ships”
stands out as one of their most cheap and viable projects:
1,900 wind-powered, unmanned ships directed by satellite would
ply the oceans sucking up seawater and spraying minuscule
droplets of it out through tall funnels to create large white
clouds. These clouds, it is predicted, would reflect around
one or two per cent of the sunlight that would otherwise warm
the ocean. It is acknowledged that the scheme may affect rainfall
patterns and the solution is to put them rather far away -from
the land, though not from marine ecosystems...
This “brilliant”
idea would cost as cheap as $9 billion to test and launch
within 25 years. A bargain. Other projects include sending
mirrors into space by rocket to deflect the sun’s rays,
scattering iron powder into the seas to boost CO2-absorbing
plankton, and mimicking the effects of volcanic eruptions
in shielding the sun's rays with a chemical haze and creating
a global cooling effect that can last for over a year. All
these have been dismissed as unviable and expensive. Imagine!
The director of the Copenhagen
think-tank, Bjorn Lomborg, has clear thoughts and fortunately
calls a spade a spade. He believes the schemes could prove
that there are better ways of addressing climate change than
simply reducing CO2 emissions: “We need to have a debate
about all of the options, not just the politically correct
one of reducing CO2.”
We cannot help but quoting
some comments on this piece of news at telegraph.co.uk (http://tiny.cc/pYlIv)
that reflect the feelings these “solutions” arouse
in sensible people: “Brilliant: Why didn't I think that?
Spray ocean water into the air to mitigate rising sea levels
and cure obesity? And my plan will only cost you taxpayers
$230,000,000,000.” “Call me stupid but isn't Venus
covered in clouds? Clouds which have allowed the surface temperature
to rise high enough to melt lead.” “How are you
going to protect these ships from somali pirates. Alright,
this made me laugh. And if I'm the only one who thought 'Star
Wars' when I saw these, I'm going to be one sad panda.”
index
- Carbon trading: flying
on the trapeze without a net
There is nothing like
creating a problem for finding a good business opportunity
. Or at least this is so for seasoned business men and women.
It is thus that behind wars one can easily find the arms business.
Behind citizen insecurity -largely resulting from social and
economic inequity- is the business of security: insurance
monitoring systems, bars, alarms and heavy-handed “saviour”
politicians. Behind disease is the “health”
business: the drug industry and corporate medical power. And
behind climate change –as you may have already guessed-
are the companies and governments that, with their extractivist,
globalizing and consumption development model, have caused
it. With the Industrial Revolution they opened up the
Pandora’s Box of fossil fuels, which had been buried
underground for millions of years, releasing them in the form
of greenhouse gases and causing the Earth’s atmosphere
to warm up. After many years, the serious negative impacts
this has caused have been demonstrated. But these corporations
and governments show no sign of changing and, above all, they
want to make money. And here is where the flying trapeze acrobats
appear on scene.
Carbon trading, adopted
by the United Nations Climate Change Convention’s Kyoto
Protocol, is a very complex system promoted by governments,
financial institutions and companies to meet climate change.
It is mainly based on treating the earth’s cycling capacity
of carbon dioxide -one of the main greenhouse gases causing
climate change- as a new scarce resource to be commodified,
priced and traded for use by the highest bidder. This avoids
corporations and companies from truly fulfilling the objective
of reducing the emission of their greenhouse effect gases.
Thus they are aiming at a “market solution,” that
is to say, the creation of carbon trading systems, divided
up into measurable units. Supposedly the market’s
“hidden hand” will provide the solution. And behind
it are the people on the flying trapeze, swinging on their
markets, gracefully pirouetting in the air. The pirouettes
are such that they end up by fulfilling the objectives of
reduction without any reduction taking place at all!
Carbon trading comes under
two main schemes: the mechanism known as “cap and trade”
and “offsetting.” (1)
Under “cap and trade”
schemes, a central government authority (such as for instance
the European Commission) establishes a cap on the quantity
of greenhouse gases that can be released within a specific
area. All the companies have specified pollution permits (carbon
credits) and those exceeding the cap can buy credits from
those who pollute less. To date, most of these permits have
been granted for free. The number of permits granted are calculated
according to present levels of greenhouse gas pollution and
thus, those who most polluted in the past are today those
most rewarded by the subsidy. The European Union Emissions
Trading Scheme (EU ETS), presently the world’s largest
carbon market, operates this way.
Carbon “offsetting”
is another form of carbon trading. This system authorizes
companies, governments, international financial institutions
and individuals – initially in the countries of the
North – who carry out polluting activities, to finance
elsewhere, -in impoverished countries in the South who need
“development”– projects that supposedly
make it possible to avoid carbon emissions. With this scheme
it is supposed that they are offsetting emissions –
which they continue releasing anyway. The formula is: I contribute
to climate change, I pay you not to do so (supposedly), but
I continue to do so! Sorry – what about reduction? This
is the way that the United Nations’ Clean Development
Mechanism operates.
Various stock exchange
agents and economists of the same school that was behind the
recent financial crisis were the ideologists of carbon trading,
which has turned out to be a failure in terms of its so-called
objective of dealing with climate change. In fact, since its
creation it has done just the opposite of encouraging and
gathering funds for a transition towards a fossil fuel-free
economy: not only does it enable the main fossil fuel polluters
to elude their responsibility of making a dramatic structural
change, but also continues to “export” this destructive
model to the countries of the South. An example
are the projects for large scale tree plantations as “carbon
sinks,” or for agrofuels, occupying territories, displacing
people, and destroying ecosystems.
Furthermore, the commoditisation
of carbon emissions has led to a new “climate colonialism.”
Carbon trading is a way of privatizing clean air, the atmosphere
and the privatisation of permission to pollute. Those who
can afford to pay can purchase “permission” to
pollute other peoples’ air.
Other proposals, such
as the use of biochar, nuclear energy and other fanciful ideas
such as those referred to in some of the articles in this
bulletin, are seriously being considered by various carbon
trading systems. The multimillionaire investor, George
Soros spelt it out very clearly: “it is possible to
speculate with the system: that is why it appeals to financial
guys like such as myself – because that is where financial
opportunities are to be found.”
Beyond the senselessness
and irresponsibility of these acrobats on the flying trapeze
to launch themselves – and launch us – blithely
into the void and without a net, the tragedy is that they
create entelechies such as “carbon credits” or
“compensation” of emissions, and make the world
believe that they operate like commodities. Or even that they
do work. Thus enormous brainy structures have been set up
with economists and Nobel Prize winners involved and fed by
substantial amounts of money around a huge incoherency. This
incoherency is to equate biospheric carbon emissions (from
plants, the soil, the oceans, animals and humans), whose carbon
has maintained its circulation in a balanced way since human
life started on the planet, with carbon emissions from fossil
fuels -the underground carbon that began to be brought into
the atmosphere only some 200 years ago and altered this balance.
This carbon simply cannot be returned to the depths of the
earth at present. (2) And all the proposals made from carbon
trading just put everything in the same bag without considering
the measure of halting what is at the root of the problem:
the extraction of fossil fuels.
The carbon trading solution
is very distant from the true solution to climate change:
that of finding for humanity a way of keeping under the ground
what are left of fossil fuels and reorganizing the energy,
transport and housing systems of industrialized societies!
(1) “Carbon
Trading. How it works and why it fails”, Tamra Gilbertson
and Oscar Reyes, Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, November
2009, http://www.dhf.uu.se/pdffiler/cc7/cc7_web.pdf
(2) “An Introduction to Carbon Trading”, European
Youth for Action, http://eyfa.org/eyfa_newsletter/carbon_trading
index
- Carbon neutral: it’s
magic!
There is no doubt that
public opinion has become aware of the climate change issue.
However, for most people this is but a headline in the newspapers
and they tend to think that although this is in fact a major
problem, there is no need to worry about it because the UN
is working to solve it and that surely science will invent
something to prevent it from happening.
Thus, specialized agencies
outline “scenarios,” models, forecasts, complex
formulas presenting the issue in an aseptic and depoliticized
way, without addressing the root of the problem: the consumption
of fossil fuels. On the contrary, formulas are invented that
distract attention and postpone solutions. This is what is
happening with the idea that it is possible to become “carbon
neutral”: magicians put tons of carbon dioxide into
their top hats and then show them empty for the public to
applaud.
This is the way it works:
companies or individuals are told that they can reduce to
zero the carbon emissions they release from their activities
(their “carbon footprint”). All they need to do
is to put money into projects that will supposedly offset
from the atmosphere the same amount of carbon they release.
This has become another “market niche.”
The Carbon Neutral
Company has cashed in on this. In its webpage it offers
a system to calculate the “carbon footprint” of
people’s or companies’ activities: travel by plane,
car or public transport, or the consumption of energy, heating,
etc. All these activities, specified by the interested party,
lead to a result measured in tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
And here is the telltale trail! But do not despair; do not
even consider changing your lifestyle, because the company
provides the solution: in order to “neutralize”
those emissions, just invest a specific amount of money –
also a result of this calculation – into some of the
projects from its portfolio. As expected, one of the sectors
of these projects implies the planting of tree monocultures.
But, like the hat trick,
this is just a hoax! As has already been argued by author
Kevin Smith, not only is it impossible to assess just how
much CO2 is taken up by trees but basically, the locked-up
fossil carbon is entirely different from the carbon which
is part of the live carbon-cycle. Every time fossil fuels
are burnt, the locked-up carbon that was trapped underground
is converted into active carbon. However, the reverse
process is impossible. Once active, carbon might be fixed
in a tree trunk for a while, but in the long run the wood
will be burnt or rot away releasing the carbon back into the
atmosphere. It will add to the active carbon pool.
Offsetting carbon emissions
is a deception. The carbon neutral magicians want to do business
by generating a state of complacency and, what is more serious,
in this way they are postponing awareness about the need to
adopt the necessary drastic measures to curb climate change.
index
SENSIBLE VOICES
- Relevant statements
for addressing the climate crisis
Even when everything would
seem to indicate that the future of the planet’s climate
is in the hands of a group of clowns, the possibility always
exists of recovering common sense, that is to say, the sense
of ordinary people.
And it is precisely from
there, from the grass roots, the social organizations, NGOs
and from sensible people that the drive and the force will
stem to propose, denounce and scatter the word that will shake
world society and make it demand that those responsible for
public policies act in accordance with the seriousness of
climate change.
- La
Via Campesina: Small farmers cool down the earth!
Small farmers – women and men - from around the world
will gather in Copenhagen in December to defend their proposal
for solving the climate crisis. Sustainable farming and local
food production are actually cooling down the earth. Peasant
agriculture allows carbon to be sequestrated in soils and
uses less fossil fuel-based machines and chemical inputs.
(http://www.viacampesina.org/main_en/index.php?option=com_c
ontent&task=view&id=811&Itemid=75/)
- RECOMA:
Do something serious for the climate and stop monoculture
tree plantations!
It is now 17 years since the international community agreed
that the climate crisis was serious and that something had
to be done. The two simple measures that needed to be taken
were to halt the extraction of fossil fuels and to halt deforestation.
Year after year the problem becomes more serious. (http://www.wrm.org.uy/COP15/RECOMA.pdf)
- Asian
Women's Quilt on Climate Change: Climate Talks for People's
Needs, Not Corporate Greed!
We, women, environmental, indigenous people's and women’s
rights organizations from Mongolia, Pakistan, Philippines,
Sri Lanka, Thailand and other Asian countries today unite
by unfurling a giant collaborative quilt on the impacts of
global warming on Asian communities and the people's responses
to these problems in front of the United Nations ESCAP building
for the ongoing United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change intersessional meeting. (http://www.climatechangeaction.net/blog/asian-womens-quilt-climate-change-
climate-talks-peoples-needs-not-corporate-greed)
- Declaration
of Women in Asia on Climate Change
We, the indigenous, peasant, fisher, labour, rural and urban
women, face the bulk of negative impacts of climate change
and the false solutions offered to us. We produce and provide
food; work inside and outside homes to augment our family
income and are often the principal income earners; and through
our productive and reproductive labour, ensure the welfare
of our families and communities. (http://www.gendercc.net/fileadmin/inhalte/Bilder/UNFCCC_conferences/Road_to_Copenhagen/Asian_
Women_Declaration_on_Climate_Change.pdf)
- Climate
Justice Now!: False Climate Solutions in Barcelona, November
2009
The international civil society network Climate Justice Now!
deplores the downplaying of expectations for the Copenhagen
Climate Summit in Barcelona by industrialized countries, UNFCCC
officials and the host of the Copenhagen Summit. (http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/climate/info.service/2009/climate.change.20091103.htm)
- Declaration
of the Climate Vulnerable Forum, comprising the 11 countries
considered most vulnerable to climate change: Maldives, Kiribati,
Bangladesh, Nepal, Vietnam, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Barbados
and Bhutan
We, Heads of State, Ministers and representatives of Government
from Africa, Asia, Caribbean and the Pacific, representing
some of the countries most vulnerable to the adverse impacts
of climate change. (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/fresh-demands-from-front-line-states-in-climate-fight/)
- Quito
Declaration: Resistance, Good Living (Buen Vivir), Good
Shared Living
Mujeres y hombres de diversas organizaciones y redes (nos
reunimos) para escuchar, conversar y debatir acerca de la
estrecha relación que hay entre los proyectos de energía,
la deuda externa y ecológica, el cambio climático,
el despojo de los territorios, la represión y la resistencia.
(http://www.deudaecologica.org/Noticias/DECLARACION-DE-QUITO
-Resistencia-Buen-Vivir-Buen-Convivir-ASAMBLEA-INTER-REDES.html)
- Memorandum
to the Government of India by Indian Social Organisations
We, the undersigned people’s organisations, social movements,
trade unions and concerned citizens, submit this memorandum
to the Government to draw your attention to the several urgent
and so far unaddressed concerns about the climate crisis and
the Indian Government’s response to them, especially
in light of the upcoming 15th Conference of the Parties (COP)
of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) at Copenhagen from 7-18 December 2009. (http://www.wrm.org.uy/COP15/MEMORANDUM.pdf)
- Further climate-related actions worldwide: From the UNFCCC
international COP14 held in Poznan, Poland, in 2008, to next
COP 15 to be held in December 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark,
there has been a trail of actions from people around the world.
All of them stress policy makers the urgency to take true
actions to really deal with climate change. (http://www.wrm.org.uy/COP15/cop15.html#ontheroad)
index
BROADENING THE DEBATE
- Climate change policy
– does gender make a difference?
International negotiations
about global climate protection have been slow, delivering
meagre results. The debate began over 20 years ago, articulating
the target of achieving 20 per cent in CO2 emissions reductions,
and ended up in the Kyoto Protocol with a mere 5 per cent
– and even this has been questioned time and again.
This chapter is written
from our perspective as gender experts and civil society activists
working to raise awareness of gender and climate-change issues,
and to integrate gender considerations into climate-change
policy making, particularly at the international level. We
have been active in this area and the broader gender and sustainable
development discourse for the past ten plus years, and founded
the network GenderCC – Women for Climate Justice. GenderCC
is connecting women and gender experts from around the world,
providing information and capacity development on the issues,
as well as information on the process of political engagement,
in order to achieve gender mainstreaming in climate-change-related
policy making through increased knowledge and active participation
in decision-making.
The quality of policy
making will remain unacceptably low, if the discourse does
not consider the gender issues, including relevant differences
between women’s and men’s experience. If getting
the social impact of climate-protection commitments and targets,
mitigation and adaptation policies onto the agenda broadens
the debate and changes it into a discussion framed by the
principles of sustainability, then this will also provide
entry points for gender considerations.
Broadening the debate
may have the following positive effects for climate protection:
• The debate on climate
change has been very narrow, focusing on the economic effects
of climate change, efficiency, and technological problems.
However, it would be better if policies and measures that
aim to mitigate climate change were based on a more holistic
understanding of human perception, values, and behavioural
choices. That would include considering the specifics for
different groups in society, including women and men. If policies
are tailored to respond to the interests and needs of both
women and men, and to further the goal of gender equality,
they will be more effective – for example, campaigning
for energy efficiency should involve consideration of who
uses which appliances and for which purposes.
• Taking into account
a variety of perspectives from different social groups would
lead to improved measures and mechanisms – that is,
solutions that reflect the interests not only of the powerful,
but also of less influential groups whose voices are rarely
heard at international conferences.
• If the terms of
the debate are broadened to include the social impact of climate
change, this would attract representatives from women’s
organizations to take part in the policy process and influence
the debate.
• Being more inclusive
of different voices, and ultimately developing policy which
is more appropriate and hence more effective, would also improve
the recognition and acceptance of the international policy
process by the general public.
Taking a gender perspective
on climate change into account in negotiations might also
enable us to avoid possible negative effects of climate-change
measures and mechanisms on gender equality. For example:
• Market-based instruments
can affect women in different ways from men, because of differences
in income levels, and in access to markets and services. These
policies would need to be very carefully designed, and informed
by a full gender analysis, in order to avoid worsening gender
inequality.
• Commitments made
to reduce the carbon emitted by private households may have
an adverse impact on gender equality. The gender division
of labour, and stereotypes about women’s and men’s
roles, leads to a disproportionate amount of work in the home
being done by women. Requirements that households should use
less energy would therefore have most impact on women. In
general, private households are the societal institutions
with the least influence and representation of their interests
in the context of climate negotiations.
• Technological solutions
are not always the solutions preferred by women: ‘faster,
bigger, further’ are rather masculine principles, which
one may also find in the climate-change policy process. Women
tend to believe that technical solutions, such as further
development of biofuels, or carbon capture and storage, are
not sufficient to meet the requirements of developing a low-carbon
economy.
In conclusion, climate-protection
instruments and measures have potential to exacerbate existing
inequalities, if they do not take full account of gender differences,
and gender relations. However, when integrating gender considerations,
such instruments and measures can indeed contribute to increasing
gender equality.
Excerpted and adapted
from “Engendering the climate-change negotiations: experiences,
challenges, and steps forward”, Minu Hemmati and Ulrike
Röhr, chapter 13 of “Climate Change and Gender
Justice”, Published by Practical Action Publishing in
association with Oxfam GB, 2009.
index
|
