GW71 Feature
Can't-cún
Derek
Wall looks at the
outcomes of the United Nations Climate Change
Conference in Cancún
The reality of
climate change becomes more evident every day
with devastating floods in countries as far apart
as Pakistan and Australia, forest fires in
Russia, and another severe drought affecting the
Amazon. Yet the process whereby the world’s
nations come together to tackle climate change
seems to be stalling. In Cancún, Mexico, the
latest international climate conference occurred
during December. Whereas the previous meeting, in
Copenhagen in December 2009, was widely regarded
as a disaster, reactions to Cancún have been
mixed.
One country, Bolivia, rejected the agreement reached at the Cancún conference claiming that the programme was so weak it guaranteed that millions of people, especially those in Latin American and African countries, would die. The Bolivians also believe that unless radical action is taken, low-lying islands, such as the Maldives, will be submerged totally.
The Bolivians argue that not only do we need to move beyond carbon trading but also that the current economic system, based on infinite economic growth, is ecologically unsustainable. They want an explicit carbon justice element acknowledging the carbon debt of richer countries like the UK and US which have produced far more carbon dioxide than poorer countries. Most radically, the Bolivian President, Evo Morales, argues that we should respect what he calls Pachamama, the indigenous Bolivian term for Mother Earth.
Dr Simon Lewis, a climate change scientist from Leeds University, who took part in the negotiations as a science advisor for the government of Gabon in central Africa, argues that the whole process of international agreements can appear to have failed “because the obvious solution to climate change, keeping most fossil carbon out of the atmosphere by keeping fossil fuels in the ground, was not solved or even much discussed”.
Yet he points to the fact that, while progress was modest, the process which could have collapsed totally, with some countries like Russia exiting, is at least continuing; “many were arguing whether the UN or multilateralism had any future if 193 countries can’t agree on anything, so I think Cancún was important because countries generally were willing to compromise to keep the chance of a multilateral, UN-brokered deal, alive. This in my view is preferable to letting a small club of powerful countries lay claim to the governance of the global climate.”
However he sees a fundamental problem in that “the UN framework failed to include penalties for failing to comply with the Kyoto protocol and the Cancún agreements are similarly devoid of clear penalties for rich countries which may again fail to live up to their stated and agreed commitments. This is a major architectural flaw that income-rich countries won’t address. For income-poor countries, future failure will likely lead to reducing or stopping climate-related finance. As usual, it is one rule for the income-rich, another for the income-poor.”
One major change has been an agreed increase in the role of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) mechanism. This means that rich countries can offset some of their greenhouse gas production from other sources, such as transport or industry, by paying to conserve forests. While this sounds good in theory, in practice there is concern that forest dwellers may be excluded from living in forests and that fraud may occur. Indigenous people are very critical of REDD and the Peruvian indigenous leader Hugo Blanco noted that “only Bolivia opposed REDDs”.
Lewis argues; “The REDD mechanism should primarily be seen as a global experiment in the recognition of, and payment for, an environmental service. The good news is that indigenous peoples are very high on the agenda in terms of the REDD mechanism: they are very visible. This puts people in a much better position to make sure REDD works for forest dwellers and not against them, particularly compared to the other threats to indigenous peoples which are outside the spotlight shone by REDD”.
He argues that, while the messages from Cancún are mixed, indigenous people are at last gaining greater respect. But radical plans for major cuts in climate change gases, a green new deal and effective preservation of vital carbon sinks, such as rainforests, are still yet to be implemented.
The political will for real change is lacking, yet the time to take effective action is beginning to run out. We need to make our voices louder both by electing Green Party politicians and supporting imaginative direct action such as the Camp for Climate Action.
Derek Wall is a former Green Party principal speaker. He blogs on another-green-world.blogspot.com
One country, Bolivia, rejected the agreement reached at the Cancún conference claiming that the programme was so weak it guaranteed that millions of people, especially those in Latin American and African countries, would die. The Bolivians also believe that unless radical action is taken, low-lying islands, such as the Maldives, will be submerged totally.
The Bolivians argue that not only do we need to move beyond carbon trading but also that the current economic system, based on infinite economic growth, is ecologically unsustainable. They want an explicit carbon justice element acknowledging the carbon debt of richer countries like the UK and US which have produced far more carbon dioxide than poorer countries. Most radically, the Bolivian President, Evo Morales, argues that we should respect what he calls Pachamama, the indigenous Bolivian term for Mother Earth.
Dr Simon Lewis, a climate change scientist from Leeds University, who took part in the negotiations as a science advisor for the government of Gabon in central Africa, argues that the whole process of international agreements can appear to have failed “because the obvious solution to climate change, keeping most fossil carbon out of the atmosphere by keeping fossil fuels in the ground, was not solved or even much discussed”.
Yet he points to the fact that, while progress was modest, the process which could have collapsed totally, with some countries like Russia exiting, is at least continuing; “many were arguing whether the UN or multilateralism had any future if 193 countries can’t agree on anything, so I think Cancún was important because countries generally were willing to compromise to keep the chance of a multilateral, UN-brokered deal, alive. This in my view is preferable to letting a small club of powerful countries lay claim to the governance of the global climate.”
However he sees a fundamental problem in that “the UN framework failed to include penalties for failing to comply with the Kyoto protocol and the Cancún agreements are similarly devoid of clear penalties for rich countries which may again fail to live up to their stated and agreed commitments. This is a major architectural flaw that income-rich countries won’t address. For income-poor countries, future failure will likely lead to reducing or stopping climate-related finance. As usual, it is one rule for the income-rich, another for the income-poor.”
One major change has been an agreed increase in the role of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) mechanism. This means that rich countries can offset some of their greenhouse gas production from other sources, such as transport or industry, by paying to conserve forests. While this sounds good in theory, in practice there is concern that forest dwellers may be excluded from living in forests and that fraud may occur. Indigenous people are very critical of REDD and the Peruvian indigenous leader Hugo Blanco noted that “only Bolivia opposed REDDs”.
Lewis argues; “The REDD mechanism should primarily be seen as a global experiment in the recognition of, and payment for, an environmental service. The good news is that indigenous peoples are very high on the agenda in terms of the REDD mechanism: they are very visible. This puts people in a much better position to make sure REDD works for forest dwellers and not against them, particularly compared to the other threats to indigenous peoples which are outside the spotlight shone by REDD”.
He argues that, while the messages from Cancún are mixed, indigenous people are at last gaining greater respect. But radical plans for major cuts in climate change gases, a green new deal and effective preservation of vital carbon sinks, such as rainforests, are still yet to be implemented.
The political will for real change is lacking, yet the time to take effective action is beginning to run out. We need to make our voices louder both by electing Green Party politicians and supporting imaginative direct action such as the Camp for Climate Action.
Derek Wall is a former Green Party principal speaker. He blogs on another-green-world.blogspot.com
▾
▾