If This Is What the Head Honchos Believe, We're Screwed

So, this week the executive director of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Yvo de Boer of the Netherlands, passed on the reins to the new ED, Costa Rican Christiana Figueres. Many development agencies cheered when Figueres was appointed (and celebrated when she took office Thursday), as they felt that a woman in this position would put gender-specific climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies on the table.

In early June, before leaving his position, de Boer had this to say (as reported by Agence France Presse):

"I don't see the [negotiation] process delivering adequate mitigation targets in the next decade. Over the longer term, I think we will get this issue under control. Having said that, I do believe that it's a longer journey."

So much for Cancun!

But Mr. de Boer is tired. He's worked hard and must be broken-hearted at the lack of progress. But Ms Figueres is brand new. She'll be brimming with optimism, right? Wrong.

As reported by Agence France Presse on 9 June 2010, at the Bonn climate change talks Figueres cautioned that "it could take until 2050 to build the machinery that will ultimately tame greenhouse gases." She insisted that she is approaching her new job "with optimism tempered by hard-edged realism."

Ah, realism. I think the world has probably had enough of that lately.

"I continue to be confident that governments will meet this challenge, for the simple reason that humanity must meet the challenge. We just don't have another option," she said.

And then, she had this warning for people like me:

"I don't believe that we will ever have a final agreement on climate ... in my lifetime. Maybe in yours." Political progress on climate change would lag behind scientific warnings for many years to come — and those who expect a quick fix will be disappointed, she intimated.

So why would we have someone running the climate change negotiations who doesn't understand that not reaching an agreement in her lifetime (she's my age, for heaven's sake, and I plan on living another several decades!) will mean curtains for life on Earth?

Well, here's another quote from Figueres, one that shows she perhaps doesn't understand the science — or the human costs of climate catastrophe — all that well. In response to the question "How critical is the need for adaptation measures and how should those be focused to protect the most vulnerable populations?", Figueres first applauds the Copenhagen Accord's aspiration of a maximum temperature increase of 2ºC.

Whoa! Doesn't she get that carbon feedbacks are already kicking in, meaning we should be aiming for no more heating at all?

Then, luckily, she backpedals a bit: "While a good first step, this temperature increase does not guarantee the survival of the most vulnerable populations within their own boundaries and represents dangerous threats to their livelihood. Therefore, adaptation is critical to cover the impacts of that warming."

No. Wait. She thinks that adaptation will help those vulnerable populations who will not survive 2ºC to survive 2ºC? Am I missing something? Let's carry on:

"We know that farmers who depend on predictable weather patterns and water availability [name one who doesn't, I would ask] are going to be the most affected. Obviously, countries with the least resources or where agriculture represents a disproportionate share of their people's occupation will be the most at risk of climate change and the most in need of adaptation measures. Small island states, a large part of Africa and countries like Bangladesh should be obvious recipients of large investments in adaptation."

Got that? The hint is in the words "livelihoods" and "occupation." Ms Figueres is thinking in terms of money, not ecology. If farmers' livelihoods are impacted by climate change, folks, then FOOD is impacted by climate change. And WE ALL NEED FOOD TO SURVIVE (well, except for those breatharians). If agriculture goes, we go. We have evolved into a species dependent on agriculture — practically all of us.

Why are agriculture and food security so soundly ignored by head honchos of the climate change negotiations? Seriously, can't some of them think in terms of getting a climate agreement sooner rather than later, so that we can safeguard the future of our children? What are they going to eat? What are we going to eat?

79 Days - Why Does It Seem So Simple from Here?

There are lots of rumblings these days that the December climate talks in Copenhagen are not going to yield the needed agreement. Indeed, Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in an interview with Environment & Energy Publishing, seems to have lowered his expectations considerably, outlining what he sees as the four "essentials" for an international agreement in Copenhagen (Yvo de Boer is one of my climate change super-heroes, but I fear his super powers are fading):

1. How much are the industrialized countries willing to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases? [Me: With all due respect, putting "industrialized" and "willing" in the same question is begging for climate catastrophe.]

2. How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit the growth of their emissions? [Me: There can be no more growth in GHG emissions! Those days are gone. We must aim for zero. For the sake of all the children in China and India, too.]

3. How is the help needed by developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change going to be financed? [Me: I've got that one figured out below.]

4. How is that money going to be managed? [Me: Ditto. It's called a Global Green Fund. See below.]

“If Copenhagen can deliver on those four points, I’d be happy,” says Yvo de Boer. [Me: Happiness is not a destination, but a way of travel. Please, Sir, don't give up now.]

*********

Well, Mr. de Boer has been trying heartily to make something of the new international agreement, but he's not asking for enough. Here's how simple it could be:

1. Every nation on Earth must — and is going to — get to zero carbon emissions as rapidly as possible, and certainly within a timeframe of years, not decades (which we don't have). That's it. No questions asked. Abiding by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (which almost 192 nations signed onto, including the USA, and ratified) demands it. Our collective duty is to avoid "dangerous interference with the climate system." We've already failed the millions of human beings already impacted, but that in no way lessens our ethical responsibility.

2. This is not a competition (unless friendly competition will serve to make you work harder and move faster). This is an international — call it universal — cooperative venture on behalf of all future generations, of all species, but especially our own.

3. Oil, coal and natural gas are dead. Grieve their demise if necessary (don't be too sad, those fossil fuels aren't going anywhere — well, unless Kuwait pulls that nasty slant drilling stunt again) and get on with the rapid and radical global transformation to a renewable-energy-based economy.... an economy that is safer, cleaner, healthier, more equitable and more peaceful. Go, go, go!

4. Several developing nations are amongst the largest populations on Earth. Think China, India, Indonesia, Brazil. Now picture how many geniuses, innovators, entrepreneurs and whiz kids live in each of those countries. THAT'S where our funding should go (not to nations, who will squander it pandering to the fossil fuel corporations who haven't read #3 above).

5. With fossil fuels out of the picture (the appropriate carbon tax — one that truly pays for the environmental and social devastation of carbon emissions — should do the trick), the new economy should naturally put its money where it's needed (isn't that what economists are always trying to tell us?). But if that doesn't happen, then all the carbon tax money could go directly into a Global Green Fund to finance the transformation.

Please, Mr. de Boer, don't stop posing the right questions or asking for what we need if, as I know is your goal, we're to leave our grandchildren a future.

112 Days - Yikes, Back to Climate Frustration

Well, it's back into the climate fray in an effort to get some compassion and action and compassionate action happening long before December's Copenhagen climate talks.

I figured out today — when confronted with all the latest bad news on the climate change front — that one of the reasons I loved my week of Nature Daycamp is that I could leave climate change behind. I was working with kids too young to be worrying about it, and so for one week, I didn't either.

What a rude awakening this morning when I started checking my climate-related emails again. For example, here is a little compendium of quotes from Mr. Yvo de Boer, current executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change:

• "...a climate deal in Copenhagen this year is simply an unequivocal requirement to stop climate change from slipping out of control."
• "So with only 115 days of negotiating time left before Copenhagen, negotiations will need to considerably pick up speed for the world to achieve a successful result at Copenhagen."
• "...if we continue at this rate, we're not going to make it [get an agreement in Copenhagen in December]."
• "It [Copenhagen] must revolutionize international cooperation to combat climate change."
• "...serious climate change is equal to 'game over'."

Scary, eh? I must admit, I cried when I read and heard Mr. de Boer's angst and warnings. This is the most important gathering of the human tribe ever, and people are treating it like a pissing match. And believe me, pissing will not put out this fire!

(The other scary thing is that Mr. de Boer feels he must say all this with a level tone of voice. What if he actually started to sound the panic alarm with some panic in his voice? What if he were more picturesque in his choice of language? What if he called for compassion from the government leaders and negotiators he is working with? People didn't buy into the consumer culture because a reasoned voice told them once or twice to do so. Our EuroAmerican Western culture bought into our destructive way of life because our whole audiovisualsphere was jammed with lively jingled commercials and brightly coloured advertisements. Over and over again. Constantly. Please, could we not take a leaf from the other side's book?)