Danny has written an interesting guide to various climate policies, but
I think the most important bit is this
"Many groups and movements could happily unite around a major campaign
to discredit the carbon markets. However, this needs to start now"
Chris
Just or bust
Can the Copenhagen talks deliver Climate Justice? Danny Chivers casts an
eye over the options.
The Same Boat
Imagine 10 rabbits lost at sea, in a boat carved out of a giant carrot.
The carrot is their only source of food, so they all keep nibbling at
it. The boat is shrinking rapidly – but none of them wants to be the
first to stop, because then they’ll be the first to starve. There’s no
point in any of them stopping unless everyone stops – if even one rabbit
carries on eating, the boat will sink.
This is the international climate crisis in a (Beatrix Potter-flavoured)
nutshell: action by individual nations achieves little unless we all act
together. Of course, reality is a little more complex. While it’s easy
to imagine the rabbits reaching a simple agreement where they all learn
to dredge for seaweed instead, our situation involves massive global
inequalities, differing levels of responsibility, and a history of
exploitation and broken international promises.
Perhaps, then, we shouldn’t be too surprised that the international
climate negotiations – which began in earnest in 1990 with the talks
that created the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) –
have not yet got us a workable global solution. The best we’ve managed
so far has been the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, under which industrialized
nations (known as ‘Annex 1’ countries) pledged to cut their CO2
emissions by a completely inadequate 5.2 per cent by 2012. The US
famously pulled out of the deal, and most of those who remained in are
unlikely to achieve even these small cuts.
A Fair Point
Meanwhile, no definite plan has been agreed for ensuring that the poorer
nations switch to a climate-friendly development path. The US says it
won’t play unless, in the name of ‘fairness’, all non-Annex 1 countries
also take on emissions reduction targets. Southern governments, however,
point out that they’ve arrived late to the fossil fuel party: the
industrialized nations got us into this mess by emitting, over the past
200 years, the vast majority of the greenhouse gases currently warming
up the atmosphere. How can the Annex 1 countries demand that the South
restrict its development with tough carbon targets when the North has
mostly 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 money flowing from North to
South through the UNFCCC process has been via the highly flawed Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM). This has allowed wealthy nations to offset
their domestic emissions with such ‘clean development’ projects as urban
landfill sites, giant dams that were being built anyway, and slightly
more efficient steel refineries. There are now near-universal calls for
the CDM to be reformed, or scrapped altogether and replaced with
something fairer.
With Kyoto limping to the end of its life, governments are feverishly
trying to strike a new deal on global emissions cuts between 2012 and
2020. They’ll be thrashing it out in meetings in Bonn in April and June,
with the aim of signing an agreement at the next big Conference Of
Parties (COP) – Copenhagen, 1-12 December 2009.
Efforts have been focused on getting the US – responsible for 30 per
cent of current emissions – to sign up. But a deal that favours the
interests of wealthy nations over the real needs of the world’s people
would fail on two crucial counts. The expanded carbon market demanded by
the US and the EU would enrich private traders at the expense of lives
and livelihoods in the South; meanwhile, any deal without a strong
justice element would almost certainly be rejected by many Southern
governments.
Poorer nations have fought bitterly to enshrine a ‘right to development’
and an acknowledgement of countries’ ‘common but differentiated
responsibilities’ within Kyoto, which means that richer countries are
expected to act first. Unless the Annex 1 countries start showing real
commitment to these principles – through deep domestic emissions cuts,
strings-free funding, technology transfer and development allowances –
the chances of the South staying on board with a post-2012 deal are slim.1
Poorer nations have fought bitterly to enshrine a ‘right to development’
and an acknowledgement of countries’ ‘common but differentiated
responsibilities’ within Kyoto, which means that richer countries are
expected to act first. Unless the Annex 1 countries start showing real
commitment to these principles – through deep domestic emissions cuts,
strings-free funding, technology transfer and development allowances –
the chances of the South staying on board with a post-2012 deal are slim.1
Talking It Up
Unfortunately, the trend has so far been in the opposite direction. 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, and the role of carbon trading has grown
steadily.2
For example, a major subject at the recent Poznan talks was the REDD
initiative (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), which
proposes that the carbon stored in the world’s forests be added to the
carbon market.3 In one fell swoop, forest lands where people have lived
for thousands of years would be commodified and sold from beneath them,
generating credits to allow wealthy Northerners to carry on driving and
shopping – despite the fact that new research has revealed that
recognizing indigenous forest people’s land rights would cost less and
be more effective than using the carbon markets.4
Here are some of the main proposals on the table and how they measure up
when it comes to climate justice.
What's on the table?
FOR COPENHAGEN
‘Grandfathering’ of Kyoto Targets
What is it? A delightfully twee name for the way industrialized
countries’ 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: 2/10 Countries that were big polluters in 1990 get to stay
as big polluters, with a slight percentage cut. A fairer system would
instead be based upon per capita emissions (such as the ‘Contraction and
Convergence’ model championed by the Global Commons Institute),
historical responsibility for emissions, and/or ability to pay.
* EFFECTIVENESS: 2/10 The 1990 baseline is completely arbitrary, with no
relation to climate science.
* CURRENT SUPPORT: 10/10 The EU is proposing a new target of a 30%
emissions cut by 2020 for Annex 1 countries. The coalition of Least
Developed Countries (LDCs) has said it would prefer that to be a 45-50%
cut. Both of these targets are against the 1990 baseline – it’s just
being taken for granted. Alternative ideas such as ‘Contraction and
Convergence’ are sometimes discussed, but not acted upon.
It’s A Bit Like… A group of wealthy tourists and destitute refugees have
survived a plane crash and are stranded on a mountain. They decide to
ration out the food based on how much each person ate in the week before
the crash – the more you ate per day back then, the more food you get now.
Global Commons Institute: www.gci.org.uk
Greenhouse Development Rights (GDRs)
What Is It? An alternative method for setting carbon targets. It assumes
that everyone on the planet below a certain income threshold should
first have the right to get themselves out of poverty and are therefore
exempt from any emissions targets. Responsibility for climate action is
then allocated to countries based on how many of their citizens are
above the income threshold, how far above it they are, and how much
greenhouse gas that country produces.
* FAIRNESS: 8/10 Includes an explicit ‘right to develop’ for the world’s
poor (North and South), while ensuring that wealthy Southern élites are
not excluded from responsibility. However, it doesn’t acknowledge
historical responsibility or the ‘offshoring’ of emissions by wealthier
countries, and there are many potential devils lurking in the details –
such as how to set the income threshold.
* EFFECTIVENESS: 9/10 The targets within the framework are based on
up-to-date climate science, and if they were met it would give us a
decent shot at avoiding the worst stuff.
* CURRENT SUPPORT: 4/10 Some G77 governments have talked about it, and
it’s gained the backing of Christian Aid and Oxfam, but as yet has no
official position within the UNFCCC process.
It’s A Bit Like… A city is razed to the ground by alien invaders. The
people who escaped unscathed 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 people who had left
the aliens alone, stayed poor, and lived in rickety houses that
collapsed on them during the attack are allowed to recover in hospital
before joining in the work. www.ecoequity.org
Emissions Trading
What Is It? It’s the main way in which wealthy industrialized countries
are planning to meet their reduction targets – by trading ‘carbon
credits’ (permits to pollute) with other countries. Forests are due to
be added to the scheme at Copenhagen.
* FAIRNESS: 1/10 The system allows polluting industries and governments
to buy their way out of their carbon commitments, using complex trading
rules written by Northern economists. Private trading firms get rich by
buying and selling the rights to the carbon in other people’s forests
and fields, investing in dodgy quick-fixes and propping up polluting
industries.
* EFFECTIVENESS: 2/10 The EU Emissions Trading Scheme has yet to produce
any proven emissions reductions. Wealthy governments and companies can
avoid difficult-but-vital domestic emissions cuts by buying (both real
and imaginary) carbon reductions from elsewhere. Politicians get an
excuse not to stump up desperately needed cash for more effective
low-carbon development in the Global South.
* MAD, BAD, AND DANGEROUS EFFECTS: 8/10 Want to unleash a genetically
modified carbon-munching microbe, create a famine-inducing agro-fuel
plantation, privatize a forest or build a few nuclear power stations?
The carbon market is the place for you!
* CURRENT SUPPORT: 9.5/10 Unless we decide to stop it.
It’s A Bit Like… Handing control of the Earth’s vital natural systems
over to a bunch of grinning Wall Street traders. Oh no, wait: it’s
exactly like that.
www.carbontradewatch.org
www.thecornerhouse.org.uk
Mitigation and Adaptation Funds
What Is It? The G77 (a coalition of, confusingly, about 130 developing
countries) and China are proposing that the wealthiest countries put the
climate change support money they’ve been promising (for years) into a
central fund for spending on low-carbon technology, emission reductions
and climate change adaptation 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 and
squandering 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 projects such
as protecting the land rights of indigenous forest people, or on
expensive distractions like nuclear power?
* CURRENT SUPPORT: 7/10 The wealthy nations are going to have to hand
something over if they don’t want the talks to collapse completely.
It’s A Bit Like… The guy who drove a bulldozer through your house and
sold off the rubble has promised to buy you a tent in compensation. As a
huge storm gathers on the horizon, you post him another stiff reminder
letter.
Kyoto2
What Is It? A new proposal, where companies wishing to drill for oil or
gas or dig up coal would have to purchase permits. These permits would
be tightly restricted, and fall each year in line with the demands of
climate science. The money from the permit sale would go into a global
fund to protect forests, pay for adaptation measures, create a
‘revolution’ in sustainable technology and help poorer communities make
the transition to a low-carbon world.
* FAIRNESS: 7/10 The polluters pay, and the money goes to the people and
places that need it. All pretty good – so long as the poor are protected
from sudden fuel price rises, and the institutions charged with
distributing the funds (Oliver Tickell, who developed the proposal,
suggests UN agencies and NGOs) do so in a transparent and accountable
way that actively includes the affected communities.
* EFFECTIVENESS: 8/10 It looks good on paper, and is based on solid
climate science. However, we all know how adept fossil fuel companies
are at finding loopholes…
* CURRENT SUPPORT: 1/10 This new proposal would involve totally changing
the terms of the international negotiations, shifting the responsibility
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 doesn’t explicitly recognize historical
responsibility, or a neat way out of the current deadlock?
It’s A Bit Like… That moment near the end of a meeting where someone
suggests an interesting new idea that might make the previous four hours
of discussion completely irrelevant, and you don’t know whether to shake
their hand or throw the water jug at them.
www.kyoto2.org
IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES
Underpinning the climate talks are a raft of ideas for how emissions
reductions can be achieved. Here are some of the forerunners.
Government-Funded Climate Programmes
What Is It? Publicly funded schemes to tackle climate change – from
revamped public 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 they affect
than corporate or consumer-driven solutions (in democratic states, at
least). However, there’s also plenty of scope for corruption and the
siphoning of public funds into expensive ‘solutions’ that benefit
wealthy élites rather than 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 and
community groups cannot do alone, and governments will need to play an
active role.
* CURRENT SUPPORT: 6/10 There are positive examples out there (such as
Germany’s big renewables roll-out), but they are often cancelled out by
the simultaneous development of roads, runways and fossil fuel power
stations.
It’s A Bit Like… Asking a big kid you don’t really like or trust to
chase away some bullies for you.
Carbon Taxes
What Is It? A government tax on sources of carbon pollution.
* FAIRNESS: 5/10 Could hit the poorest in society hardest through higher
fuel prices, unless it were carefully designed. Taxes on companies
producing or burning fossil fuels could be fairer, if those companies
were prevented from passing those costs on to others. British Columbia’s
new carbon tax includes a rebate for the poorest families.
* EFFECTIVENESS: 6/10 Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, Denmark,
Germany, Norway, Italy, and a few US towns and counties have
experimented with carbon taxes, with mixed results. The taxes do seem to
reduce carbon emissions, but usually on a smaller scale than was hoped
for – often due to loopholes and concessions demanded by industry or
angry consumer groups.
* CURRENT SUPPORT: 5/10 Carbon taxes are talked about within the UNFCCC
process as a potential tool, but they’re not generally very popular back
home.
It’s A Bit Like… Asking a big kid you don’t really like or trust to
charge the bullies £1 for every time they thump you.
Nicola Liebert, ‘Why Ecotaxes May Not Be The Answer’, NI 416, October 2008
Techno-fixes and Geo-engineering
What 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
iron in the oceans and spraying sulphates in the sky.
* FAIRNESS: 1/10 Most 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 a
giant space mirror that was the only thing preventing the world from
being fried, or if Monsanto held the patent for an algal fuel that the
whole world relied upon for power. What a beautiful future we’d be building.
* EFFECTIVENESS: 2/10 Most are more than a decade away from large-scale
implementation, and would drain resources away from proven and
sustainable solutions.
* MAD, BAD, AND DANGEROUS EFFECTS: 10/10 Poisonous algal blooms,
disruption of little-understood oceanic food webs, mass appropriation of
lands, seas and forests, acid rain, sudden future CO2 eruptions, and
corporate control of the climate system… will that do?
* CURRENT SUPPORT: 7/10 European governments are desperate for carbon
capture to materialize. There have been pro-sulphate-spraying
demonstrations in Australia. An open market in carbon emissions would be
a big boost to a lot of these wacky schemes.
It’s A Bit Like… Your house is on fire, so you sit down in the living
room and start drawing up designs for a giant wall-smashing robot.
‘Techno-Fixes’ report, Corporate Watch, www.corporatewatch.org
The road ahead
If the talks continue in their current vein, then Copenhagen is likely
to produce a similar deal to Kyoto – arbitrary (though larger) targets
against a 1990 baseline, perhaps giving targets to some of the larger
developing countries in return for extra mitigation funds, 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 as Friends of
the Earth International, Oxfam and Christian Aid are becoming
increasingly vocal on the issue of climate justice. New networks are
forming amongst Northern and Southern social movements to demand
community-led solutions to the climate crisis, and an end to the
privatization of lands and forests through carbon trading schemes.
Down with Kyoto
We shouldn’t get too hung up on Copenhagen – we’re far more likely to
create lasting change by building powerful national and international
movements than by pouring all our energy into specific summit meetings.
But it’s hard to deny that we need some sort of international framework
for tackling this global issue. Despite its flaws, the UNFCCC is the
only one we’ve 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 and start again from scratch? It’s
tempting, but would be unlikely to gain the crucial support of Southern
negotiators, who fear that a brand new deal would see them lose their
hard-won ‘differentiated responsibility’.
A better approach might be to create space within the existing talks for
alternative, fairer systems and ideas – such as GDRs, Kyoto2,
community-led solutions, indigenous rights, strings-free clean
development assistance, patent-free technology transfer – to get a
hearing. Currently emissions trading, private financing and market-based
mechanisms are seen as the only route to greenhouse gas reductions, and
are crowding everything else out of the debate.
This suggests a simple, effective starting point for developing a
successful – and just – global agreement: we need to get rid of carbon
trading.
Just: do it
Many groups and movements could happily unite around a major campaign to
discredit the carbon markets. However, this needs to start now. The
massive protests planned for Copenhagen will be too late to have much
effect on the talks (unless things have gone so badly that they need to
be shut down!)
Let’s face it – whatever gets agreed at Copenhagen, governments are
unlikely to stick to it unless there is an international movement
powerful enough to make it happen. A global climate treaty will never be
a panacea, but we can at least make sure it’s 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 the table at Copenhagen is available at
http://adaisythroughconcrete.blogspot.com
1. T Roberts & B Parks, A Climate Of Injustice, MIT Press 2007
2. Diana Liverman, ‘Survival into the Future in the Face of Climate
Change’ in E Shuckburgh (ed.), Survival: The Survival of the Human Race
(2006 Darwin Lectures), Cambridge University Press, 2007
3. See: thereddsite.wordpress.com
4. The Guardian, ‘Pay indigenous people to protect rainforests,
conservation groups urge’, 17 October 2008,
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/17/forests-endangeredhabitats
5. Financial Mechanism for Meeting Financial Commitments under the
Convention. Proposal by the G77 and China to the Poznan meeting.
|
