Cancun Rhetoric ... Kiss the Future Goodbye

NOT.

Did you know that if this were a blog about recipes or crafts, I'd receive sometimes up to 70 or more responses after each post? But because it's about the future of life on Earth, I hardly ever hear from anyone?

Mind you, with the denialists trolling around out there, I'm pleased that they either haven't found this blog or can't argue with compassion. I've never heard from a single one! (Although there was that one guy who called me an ecoweenie — for caring — on his own blog ... does he count? ;-)

That said (can you tell I've been searching for recipes and craft ideas this past week?), let me give you my take on the results of the Cancun climate conference, which ended early yesterday — from the perspective of climate compassion.

It's simple. For some weird-ass reason, almost all the negotiators, heads of state and NGOs thought that "saving the process" is more important than saving the world and protecting the children. They're all patting themselves on the back for "saving the process." (And again promising more money to developing nations* and again deciding that they'll save the world next year** and again concurring on halting deforestation*** and again realizing that the industrialized nations ought to reduce their emissions and again agreeing that, ooh, we really should peak our carbon emissions soon — but not yet.)

Only Bolivia had the cojones (if Sarah Palin can use the term, so can I) to stand against the Cancun Agreements. "Responsibly, we cannot go along with a situation that my President has termed 'ecocide and genocide'," said Pablo Solon, Bolivian ambassador to the United Nations. Of course, Bolivia is losing the source of drinking water and irrigation for its capital city, La Paz — due to global warming. So they might know a thing or two more than your average-idiot must-continue-burning-fossil-fuels-at-all-costs head of state when it comes to the climate change emergency.

There are lots and lots of reasons NOT to celebrate this agreement. (Bless them, Friends of the Earth, through Asad Rehman, said, "The emissions cuts on the table could still lead to a global temperature increase of up to five degrees, which would be catastrophic for hundreds of millions of the world's poorest people." It was Greenpeace's Wendel Trio who said, "Cancun may have saved the process but it has not yet saved the climate." And Kate Blagojevic, of World Development Movement, said, "A year after the Copenhagen Accord little has changed, and 300,000 more people have died from climate change-related impacts. Another year will pass where more lives will be ruined by climate change.")

Here's the scariest for me (you know, besides the entrenchment of the 2ºC warming target and other future-killing agreements like that).

Until now, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process has been based on achieving 100 percent consensus — which is why the United States has been able to delay, delay, delay global action. Until now. Now, it's okay to ignore Bolivia's disagreement with the proposal. Now, it's okay to bang the gavel (because all the big boys were on board) and simply ignore a country that is already being impacted by one of the scariest of climate change impacts.

So, on the list of the 194 or so countries at the table, where is the line drawn? Above this line, if they disagree, there's no consensus and back to the drawing board. But below this line, well, that nation doesn't count much so @!#& 'em. Where has that line been drawn? Translation: We, the people, have no power. Zero. Zip. Naught. Nada. Nichts. None whatsoever.

If the Cancun Agreements signal "progress," then we can kiss the future goodbye.

* The multi-billion dollar Green Fund promised to help developing nations fight climate change doesn't have to start for another year (it's been a commitment in the UNFCCC text since 1992), and it's to be run by the World Bank. He he, that's a funny one.

** When time is of the essence and the climate change emergency is already impacting the most climate-change-vulnerable populations (a preview of what will befall us all soon), why do negotiators keep putting off doing anything real and really effective until the next Conference of the Parties (in Durban, South Africa next year)? Why? No, really, why?

*** REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation + replanting, etc.) has been fought by indigenous peoples around the world. Why did they have no say in these agreements? Not only that, but their top spokesperson, Tom Goldtooth, was denied access to the talks, escorted away by security for being critical of the process. And this is "success," is it? Bah, humbug.

Let's Not Manifest(o) the Wrong Thing!

I honestly don't know what to do when the people who are supposed to be on "our side" (those who care about the planet and the children) don't keep up with the science and the people's movement — or perhaps don't want to go out on a limb, even if it's a limb that could safeguard the future. 

*****

A manifesto is "a public declaration of principles and intentions, often political in nature." Just as we must be careful what we wish for, for we might get it, so we must be careful what we put into a manifesto. What if it manifests?

Someone over at OneClimate.net has written "Manifesto: The Case for 1.5º Celsius," in response to the developed nations "targeting" a global average temperature increase of 2.0ºC. 

But 1.5ºC is simply too high! We must call for an absolute limit of 1.0ºC and no higher.

This manifesto says in part: "Acts of inhumanity come about as a result of bad decisions made by a small number of political leaders, carried out by their employees and followers, and accepted without challenge by millions of people at large...."

With all due respect to the writer, how can political leaders be blamed for today's climate change acts of inhumanity when so many environmental NGOs insist on insisting on a limit (target???) of 1.5 degrees C, instead of the potentially lifesaving 1.0 degrees agreed to at the World People's Conference in Cochabamba? If "the people" refuse to back "the people's call" for a limit of 1.0 degrees, then why would governments back it? I'll say it again: 1.5 is too high. Look at the carbon feedbacks already kicking in at 0.7!

To quote from the piece above: "I would prefer to say, ‘Let’s stop the rise at no more than 1°C.’ But I fear that it may be too late to aim for 1° now."

NO, NO, NO. First, we must NOT "aim" for *any more* global heating. We cannot use that word! What we want is to go back down to where we started, not accept a warmed world (where carbon feedbacks are already starting). We must use the word "limit." 

Second, morally and ethically, and on behalf of all the children of all species, we must NEVER use "it may be too late" as an excuse to not demand the right thing. 

And if it's all about strategy, well then, let's remember that "the people" have no voice in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations. Only governments have a voice and a seat at the table — and if we can get the G-77 (actually about 130 countries now) to see that a 1.0 degree limit could save those who are the most climate change vulnerable (Bangladesh and other coastal nations, small island states, glacier-dependent countries, drought- and flood-prone regions, especially in Africa), then they will want to back Bolivia's position (1 degree limit, 300 ppm limit (no, NOT 350), zero carbon emissions, etc.), which supports the People's Agreement, which speaks for all the people, including future generations.

The only thing that will frighten developed nations into doing the right thing (heading toward zero-carbon energy technology at war-time speed, investing in non-commercially viable technology that sucks CO2 out of the atmosphere, and sharing those technologies with developing nations) is NUMBERS (as in, millions if not billions of people turning on them). And that means that "all the people" have to get together and ask, not for what we think we can get, but for what we need to get in order to safeguard our children's future.

Requiem for a Glacier — Bolivia’s Chacaltaya is Gone

We've been learning a lot about Bolivia lately, because of President Evo Morales' leadership at the Copenhagen climate summit and because of their upcoming People's Conference on Climate Change and Mother Earth's Rights (see http://pwccc.wordpress.com/).

That's how we discovered that the Kogi people, who issued a warning to Little Brother 20 years ago about changes happening in the Andes, were right. With no fanfare in the North American media when it happened about a year ago, the world's highest ski resort lost its glacier.

James Painter of BBC News reported on 12 May 2009 that the World Bank had warned that "many of the Andes' tropical glaciers will disappear within 20 years," both threatening the water supplies of almost 80 million people and jeopardizing the future generation of hydroelectricity (a climate change-friendly form of energy). Painter pointed out that "Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru depend on that power for about half their electricity."

The Bolivian people are responsible for 0.03% of greenhouse gas emissions. Isn't it staggeringly unjust that they have to pay such a high price for the climate change mess that we developed countries have created through our industrialization?

Yale Environment 360 also wrote about this sad loss. My heart goes out to the people in La Paz and other Bolivian cities and regions who are losing their main source of drinking water, one that has been around for 18,000 years.

The Call: World People's Conference on Climate Change and Mother Earth's Rights

Copenhagen offered nothing to the ordinary people — especially those living in so-called developing nations. (The "developed" nations still have much to develop ... like compassion, a conscience, a wee bit of ecological literacy perhaps.) So we were cheered to read this "Call" from Bolivian president Evo Morales to support, promote and possibly attend the People's World Conference on Climate Change and Mother Earth's Rights, in Cochabamba (don't you love that name?) 19-22 of April, 2010.

I figure any conference that even mentions the rights of Mother Earth has got to be okay. Here is the convocatoria (or call) to participate:

Enero 5, 2010

Considering that climate change represents a real threat to the existence of humanity, of living beings and our Mother Earth as we know it today;
Noting the serious danger that exists to islands, coastal areas, glaciers in the Himalayas, the Andes and mountains of the world, poles of the Earth, warm regions like Africa, water sources, populations affected by increasing natural disasters, plants and animals, and ecosystems in general;
Making clear that those most affected by climate change will be the poorest in the world who will see their homes and their sources of survival destroyed, and who will be forced to migrate and seek refuge;
Confirming that 75% of historical emissions of greenhouse gases originated in the countries of the North that followed a path of irrational industrialization;
Noting that climate change is a product of the capitalist system;
Regretting the failure of the Copenhagen Conference caused by countries called “developed”, that fail to recognize the climate debt they have with developing countries, future generations and Mother Earth;
Affirming that in order to ensure the full fulfillment of human rights in the twenty-first century, it is necessary to recognize and respect Mother Earth’s rights;
Reaffirming the need to fight for climate justice;
Recognizing the need to take urgent actions to avoid further damage and suffering to humanity, Mother Earth and to restore harmony with nature;
Confident that the peoples of the world, guided by the principles of solidarity, justice and respect for life, will be able to save humanity and Mother Earth, and
Celebrating the International Day of Mother Earth,
The Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia calls on the peoples of the world, social movements and Mother Earth’s defenders, and invites scientists, academics, lawyers and governments that want to work with their citizens to the People's World Conference on Climate Change and Mother Earth’s Rights to be held from 20th to 22nd April 2010 in Cochabamba, Bolivia.
The Peoples’ World Conference on Climate Change and Mother Earth’s Rights has as objectives:
1) To analyze the structural and systemic causes that drive climate change and to propose radical measures to ensure the well-being of all humanity in harmony with nature
2) To discuss and agree on the project of a Universal Declaration of Mother Earth Rights
3) To agree on proposals for new commitments to the Kyoto Protocol and projects for a COP Decision under the United Nations Framework for Climate Change that will guide future actions in those countries that are engaged with life during climate change negotiations and in all United Nations scenarios, related to:
- Climate debt
- Climate change migrants-refugees
- Emission reductions
- Adaptation
- Technology transfer
- Finance
- Forest and Climate Change
- Shared Vision
- Indigenous Peoples, and
- Others
4) To work on the organization of the Peoples’ World Referendum on Climate Change
5) To analyze and develop an action plan to advance the establishment of a Climate Justice Tribunal
6) To define strategies for action and mobilization to defend life from Climate Change and to defend Mother Earth’s Rights.
Bolivia, January 5th, 2010

Evo Morales Ayma
President of the
Plurinational State of Bolivia

To lend your personal or organizational moral support to this important venture, visit the Adhesiones page and fill in the form.

*****

Remember that "hope" word that I got so tired of? Well, is anyone else feeling an upswelling of interest in and attention to the climate change emergency? Young people are coming alive, older folks are wondering how to get involved, deniers are denying in ever increasingly idiotic ways (which shows that we must be doing something right). What I'm trying to say is that something's in the air ... and this People's Conference (and People's Referendum idea) might just be injecting some true hope into the climate change discourse.