1

14 March 2009

Clippings on Critical Issues & Concerns for NGOs, Activists and others concerned with Justice & Social Change

www.doccentre.net

October 2009

“In the space of a few decades, a new form of global inequality hasabruptly become politically important. An industrialised minority has

been shown to be overusing the earth’s ability to cleanse the atmosphereof excess carbon and other greenhouse gases. Awkwardly, this

inequality has turned out to be one that threatens survival itself –including, ultimately, the survival of the rich”.

In June, 1992 world leaders gathered at Rio de Janeiro in Brazil for the Earth Summit (The UnitedNations Conference on Environment and Development – UNCED), to give themselves - as theyproclaimed - “the last chance to save the world” from an impending environmental crisis. Seventeenyears down the line, and after several more world summits, they are still at it. In December 2009they will meet again at Copenhagen to negotiate a treaty that aims to save the world from the mostcataclysmic threat to its existence - the threat of climate change.

At the Rio summit, the first concrete step was taken to address the issue of climate change andresulted in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ( UNFCCC - is the first internationalagreement to prevent serious climate change). The Convention called on all countries to make theirbest effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to commit developed countries - which cause climatechange - by the year 2000. The flaw in the Convention was that world leaders failed to come to anagreement on concrete commitments to reduce emissions that cause global warming. The USA, thelargest polluter did not even sign the agreement.

This issue that is at the heart of international negotiations on climate change. At Copenhagen itis expected that the international community will finally come to an agreement on a concrete roadmap to reduce global temperatures by 2 degree centigrade above pre-industrial levels.

What is climate Change? What is it so dangerous for the planet are two questions for which theanswers are established and beyond controversy But the most controversial and vexed question ofthe century with regard to climate change is what we intend to do about it.

Critical Concerns takes a look at this long and winding road that has brought the internationalcommunity to Copenhagen.

This compilation discusses the period from the Rio conference of 1992 to the signing of the KyotoProtocol in 2004, during which the initial responses to mitigating the effects of climate change wereshaped. From Kyoto onwards a definite shift in the nature of negotiations took place – the climatechange issue began to be seen in terms of marked oriented solutions within a pronounced neo-liberal paradigm. We take a critical look at the mechanisms put in place since Kyoto - CleanDevelopment Mechanisms - and tracks developments leading up to Copenhagen.

Finally, we also take a look at a possible post-Copenhagen scenario and the alternate pathwaysto climate justice and sustainable development.

Wheeling and Dealing:From Rio to Copenhagen

CLIMATECHANGE

What is Climate Change ?A brief overview about Climate Change

and its impact on the planetLooking Back at Rio

Traces the process that began at the EarthSummit in 1992, with the signing of the

Climate Convention.

The Agenda at KyotoThe turning point came at Kyoto, when the

agenda for Climate Change was trans-formed into a business agnda.

Copenhagen and BeyondWhatever happens at Copenhagen, severalfundamnental issues with regard to climate

change will still remain to be addressed.

In this issue

2

It rained all day. It rained like it had never rained before.Trains stopped, cars were submerged, several died, andhundreds and thousands of people waded through thestreets of Mumbai. The city that never stands still cameto a grinding halt. It almost sounds like a scene from asci-fi film, but in fact it is scarily real. Mumbai witnessedthe strongest rains ever recorded in India in July 2005.Such catastrophic weather phenomena are often seenas acts of God, and they might well be, but the increasingoccurrence of extreme weather in India and around theworld points towards a dangerous threat - climate change.

Though floods, droughts, storms and other extremeweather events have always been a reality, they havebeen rare occurrences interrupting long periods of calm -- sudden outbursts marring nature's largely gentle rhythm.Now, because of human-induced climate change, thatgentle rhythm is breaking up. Overwhelming scientificevidence indicates that climate change is real - the worldis warming up and climate systems are changing

Throughout the 10,000-year history of human civilisation,weather patterns have remained relatively constant, butthe frequency of extreme weather events has increasedsteadily over the 20th century. The number of weather-related disasters during the 1990s was four times that ofthe 1950s, and cost 14 times as much in economic losses.These trends confirm the predictions of computer models:as the atmosphere warms, the climate will not onlybecome hotter but much more unstable. Extreme eventsare likely to increase, and droughts and floods will becomemore common in many regions.

Climate change is an issue that threatens the entireglobe. However, it disproportionately affects developingcountries like India and it will be most disruptive to thepoorest of the poor - those who have the least resourcesand the least capacity to cope. With its huge and growingpopulation, a long, densely populated and low-lyingcoastline, and an economy that is closely tied to its naturalresource base, climate change could have potentiallydevastating impacts on India .

The science of climate change is not a hundred percentaccurate and different models and simulations suggestdifferent scenarios. But there are certain facts that allscientists are unanimous about - the earth is gettingwarmer and climate systems are changing, and the impactof climate change is something that we are alreadycontending with. What is also clear is that human activity

has been responsible for this. It is unfortunate and, perhaps, unfair that globally the impact ofclimate change will disproportionately harm developing nations such as India despite the factthat we have contributed relatively little to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. But we can'tafford to sit around and cry foul. If the recent flooding in Mumbai and other parts of India areanything to go by, we need to get our act together fast. Because with climate change -- when itrains, it pours.

- Aditi Sen, Info Change News & Features, August 2005

Why we should beconcerned aboutClimate Change

WHEN IT RAINSIT POURS

3

What is Climate Change ?

Climate is usually defined as “the av-erage weather.” It is measured by ob-serving patterns in temperature, pre-cipitation (such as rain or snow), windand the days of sunlight as well asother variables that might be measuredat any given site.

The climate is the manifestation ofa highly complex system consisting offive interacting components: the atmo-sphere (air), the hydrosphere (water),cryosphere (frozen part of the earth),the land surface, and the biosphere(part of the earth where life exists).

Climate change refers to anychange in climate over time, whetherdue to natural variability or as a resultof human activity (anthropogeniccauses). Climate change can resultfrom the interaction of the atmosphereand oceans. The United NationsFramework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC) puts more empha-sis on human activities which causeclimate change.

Changes in the world’s climate are

not new. In fact, this is one factorwhich has influenced the course ofhuman history and human evolution.Historically, humans have been ableto cope and adapt to these changes.

Previously, it was the climate thatchanged humans. Now, we’re chang-

Greenhouse gases(GHGs)1 are chemical com-pounds such as water va-por, carbon dioxide, meth-ane, and nitrous oxide foundin the atmosphere. Carbondioxide is the main GHG andits emissions mainly comefrom burning fossil fuels.

These greenhousegases absorb some of theinfrared radiation (heat)which reflects back heat thatgets trapped by the green-house gases inside our at-mosphere. This is necessaryto make the earth warm, oth-erwise, it will be too cold.The atmosphere acts like theglass walls of a greenhouse,which allows the sun’s raysto enter but keeps the heatin.

This natural process iscalled the greenhouse ef-fect. As humans emit morecarbon dioxide and othergreenhouse gases into theatmosphere, the green-house effect becomes stron-ger and global warming oc-curs.

Global warming is thenoted average increase ofthe earth’s surface tempera-ture and oceans as com-pared to previous centuries.This is a result of the con-

What are greenhouse gases and what is the “greenhouseeffect”? How are these related to global warming?

tinuous trapping of heatwithin the earth’s atmo-sphere due to increasedquantity of greenhousegases. Global warming isone of the key aspects of cli-mate change.

Levels of some impor-tant greenhouse gases haveincreased by about 25%since large-scale industrial-ization began around 150years ago.

A brochure made by theUS Department of Energysays “The U.S. producesabout 25% of global carbondioxide emissions from burn-ing fossil fuels; primarily be-cause our economy is thelargest in the world and wemeet 85% of our energyneeds through burning fos-sil fuels.”It further states “..In theU.S., our greenhouse gasemissions come mostly fromenergy use. These aredriven largely by economicgrowth, fuel used for elec-tricity generation, andweather patterns affectingheating and cooling needs.Energy-related carbon diox-ide emissions, resultingfrom petroleum and naturalgas, represent 82% of totalU.S. human-made green-house gas emissions”

ing the climate, and we’re changing ittoo fast.

The climate change we are experi-encing now is brought by humanity’smassive dependence on fuels, particu-larly carbon-based fuels, such as coal,oil, and natural gas. These fuels bringabout greenhouse gas emissions.

What to expect......Climate change is set to inflict damage in every conti-nent, hitting poor countries hardestand threateningnearly a third of the world's species with extinction.Global warming will affect much of life on earth thiscentury.Greenhouse gases will change rainfall patterns, punchup the powerof storms and boost the risk of drought,flooding and stress on water supplies.Asia faces a heightened risk of flooding, severe w tershortages, infectious disease and hunger from globalwarming this century.The region is confronted by a 90- per cent likelihoodthat more than a billion of its people will be "adverselyaffected" by the impacts of global warming by the2050s.

120 million to 1.2 billion people in Asia will expe-rience increased water stress by 2020, and 185 to 981million by 2050.

Cereal yields in South Asia could drop in someareas by up to 30 per cent by 2050.

Even modest rises in sea levels will cause floodingand economic disruption in densely-populated mega-deltas, such as the mouths the Ganges-Brahmaputradelta in low-lying Bangladesh.

Cholera and malaria could increase, thanks toflooding and a wider habitat range for mosquitoes.

In the Himalayas, glaciers less than four kilometreslong will disappear entirely if average globaltemperatures rise by 3° Celsius. This will initially causeincreased flooding and mudslides followedby an eventual decrease in flow in rivers that are gla-cier-fed.

Per capita water availability in India will dropfrom around 1,900 cubic metre currently to 1,000 cu.metres by 2025.-The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC)

4

What is the world doing about climate change?Which multilateral organizations are mainly dealing with it?

The first assess-ment report of theIPCC served as thebasis for negotiatingthe UNFCCC, theguiding frameworkby which countriesbase their responsesto climate change.

T h eUNFCCC is a Multi-lateral EnvironmentalAgreement (MEA)which was adoptedduring the United Nations Conferenceon Environment and Development(UNCED) or the Earth Summit whichwas held in Rio de Janiero, Brazil inl992. It entered into force in 1994. TheUNFCCC sets an overall framework forintergovernmental efforts to tackle thechallenge posed by climate change. Itrecognizes that the climate system is ashared resource whose stability canbeaffected by industrial and other emis-sions of carbon dioxide and othergreenhouse gases. The Conventionenjoys near universal membership,with 192 countries having ratified andacceded to it.

Its main goal is the “stabilizationof greenhouse gas concentrations inthe atmosphere at a level that wouldprevent dangerous anthropogenichumaninduced interference with theclimate system.”

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)In 1988 the WMO and the UNEP co-established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an ad hoc,open-ended intergovernmental mechanism composed of scientists from all over the world, tasked to provide scientificassessments of climate change. It is recognized as the most authoritative scientific and technical voice on climatechange, and its assessments influence the negotiators of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol. It provides governmentswith scientific, technical and socioeconomic information which evaluate the risks and develops a response to globalclimate change.

The IPCC is organized into three working groups plus a task force on national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories:

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

The main decisionmaking body isthe Conference of the Parties (COP),which is composed of 180 states thathave ratified or acceded to the agree-ment. The Subsidiary Body for Scien-tific and Technological Advice(SBSTA) provides the COP with timelyinformation and advice on scientificand technological matters relating tothe Convention. The Subsidiary Bodyfor Implementation (SBI) helps with theassessment and review of theConvention’s implementation.

However, with the realization thatGHG emissions continued to risearound the world, Parties of theUNFCCC began negotiations to comeup with a “firm and binding commit-ment by developed countries to reduceemissions.” The result of these nego-tiations was the Kyoto Protocol.

The climate change convention isa so-called framework convention.This means that it does not representthe last word on the fight against cli-mate change. It is stated in the treatythat it is to be revised and expandedover time. Neither does it set any bind-ing targets, but aims to get membercountries to reduce their emissions inorder to prevent dangerous anthropo-genic interference with the Earth's cli-mate system. The target was for emis-sions of greenhouse gases in 2000 tostabilize with those in 1990.

During the 1990s it soon becameclear that the UNFCCC convention initself would not change developmentstowards growing emissions of green-house gases. In 1997 the conventionwas therefore expanded to include theso-called Kyoto Protocol, which forthe first time sets binding targets for

how much the industrialised countriesshould reduce their emissions by 2012.The protocol sets binding targets forthe greenhouse gas emissions of 37industrialised countries.

A group of countries that have rati-fied the UNFCCC have not ratified theKyoto Protocol and are therefore notcovered by the Kyoto Protocol. Themost prominent of these is the USA.

At the 13th annual conference ofmember countries (COP13) in Bali itwas decided to work towards a newagreement for the subsequent years.The plan - which is called the Bali Ac-tion Plan - aims towards a new agree-ment which is to be negotiated at the15th annual conference - COP15 - inCopenhagen in 2009.

Source: http://en.cop15.dk/climate+facts/process/from+rio+to+kyoto

The Kyoto Protocol (KP) wasadopted during the 3rdConference of the Parties to theUNFCCC (COP3) in Kyoto, Japanon 11 December 1997. It enteredinto force on 16 February 2005.

It sets targets for industrializedcountries (Annex 1 countries) toreduce their pollution and givesthem flexibility as to how they canreach these targets.

The KP is an internationalagreement that is linked to theexisting UNFCCC, but standingon its own. It has the sameobjectives and institutions as theUNFCCC except for the distinctionwhere the Conventionencouraged developed countriesto stabilize GHG emissions but theProtocol commits them to do so.

As of December 12, 2007, 176countries and one regionaleconomic integration organization(the EEC) have depositedinstruments of ratifications,accessions, approvals oracceptances. The US remains tobe the only country that has notratified the global treaty.

Road to Copenhagen

Kyoto Protocol

The new process may lead to anew "comprehensive" agreementOr the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Pro-tocol will be retained and the fo-cus will be on strengthening theimplementation of decisions al-ready adopted but not imple-mented

Developed countries - want toradically change or replace theKyoto Protocol and even parts ofthe Convention.

Developing countries (G77 andChina) - supports the UNFCCC andKyoto Protocol.

What after 2012?

5

Times of India, Mumbai, 23 October 2009

6

200 million at risk by 2050?The place where most of

the world's people couldfirst begin to feel the con-sequences of global warm-ing may come as a surprise:in the stomach, via the sup-per plate.

That's the view of a smallbut influential group of ag-ricultural experts who are in-creasingly worried that glo-bal warming will triggerfood shortages long beforeit causes better known butmore distant threats, suchas rising sea levels thatflood coastal cities.

The scale ofagriculture's vulnerability toglobal warming was high-lighted late last year whenthe Consultative Group on

International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR), an um-brella organization repre-senting 15 of the world's topcrop research centres, is-sued an astounding esti-mate of the impact of climatechange on a single crop,wheat, in one of the world'smajor breadbaskets.

Researchers using com-puter models to simulate theweather patterns likely toexist around 2050 found thatthe best wheat-growingland in the wide arc of fer-tile farmland stretching fromPakistan through NorthernIndia and Nepal toBangladesh would be deci-mated. Much of the areawould become too hot and

dry for the crop, placing thefood supply of 200 millionpeople at risk.

"The impacts on agricul-ture in developing coun-tries, and particularly oncountries that depend onrain-fed agriculture, arelikely to be devastating,"says Dr. Louis Verchot, prin-cipal ecologist at the WorldAgroforestry Centre inNairobi, Kenya.

In a cruel twist of fate,most of the hunger result-ing from global warming islikely to be felt by those whohaven't caused the problem:the people in developingcountries. At the same time,it may be a boon to agricul-ture in richer northern coun-

tries more responsible forthe greenhouse gas emis-sions driving climate insta-bility.

Smaller grain harvestswill translate into sharplyhigher food prices. Soaringprices, and "could lead tourban food riots in scoresof countries around theworld, and those food riotscould lead to political insta-bility and that political in-stability could begin to un-dermine global economicprogress."

Martin Staedt,Saturday's Globe and Mail,Mar. 31, 2009www.theglobeandmail.com/

The worst is yet to come....

The International Institute for Environment and Development has studied the possible effects of risingocean levels, and concluded that one eighth of the world's urban population would become "climate refu-gees," creating the largest displacement of people in world history. The most vulnerable countries areChina (144 million displaced), India (63 million) and Bangladesh (62 million), while lower on the list areJapan (30 million) and the United States (23 million).

Not only will massive amounts of people become homeless, but the changing climate is expected to createother environmental and social crises internationally. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA):

In Africa, "...between 75 million and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased waterstress due to climate change." And: "...access to food, in many African countries and regions is projectedto be severely compromised by climate variability and change."

In Latin America: "Changes in precipitation patterns and the disappearance of glaciers are projected tosignificantly affect water availability for human consumption, agriculture, and energy generation."

http://www.countercurrents.org/cooke191009.htm

Urban RuralDivideA study by the Indira Gandhi Insti-tute for Development Research foundthat, in 1989-90, the per capita car-bon emission of the top 10% of theurban population in India was 13times that of the bottom half of therural population. It is the poverty-stricken Dalit woman who fetcheshead loads of shrub from long dis-tances for the day's kitchen fire andher children who pore over theirbooks in kerosene lamp glow, thathave saved and continue to save thisplanet from a worse disaster than itfaces now. If the excluded and op-pressed sections of third world coun-tries demand their rightful share ofequitably distributed CDM funds fortheir own development, that couldlead to a different social dynamic thanwhat these societies are used to.

The Rich and not so CleanThe Indian poor are subsidising the rich, allowing them a much greatershare of the atmosphere than should be rightfully theirs.Some people are more responsible than others for the warming of the earth'satmosphere that is triggering catastrophic climate change. The biggestemitters of greenhouse gases are today's industrialised countries, the UnitedStates topping the list. Countries like India are rapidly increasing theirshare; but each Indian citizen, on average, still emits a fraction of whateach American and European does.

While average emissions per Indian citizen are way below the globalaverage, some Indians - the richest - are already nearing this average.Worse, they are already well above levels considered sustainable. But thisis camouflaged by the fact that the vast majority of Indians - the poor - areway below the average.

Greenpeace surveyed 819 households across several income classes,and calculated their carbon emissions based on energy consumption fromhousehold appliances and transportation. India's average per capita car-bon emission is 1.67 tonnes (compared to the global average of 5.03). ButGreenpeace found that the emission of the richest class (those with incomeabove Rs. 30,000 a month) is 4.97, just a fraction below the world average.In contrast, the emission of the poorest class (income below Rs. 3000 amonth, almost half of India's population) is only 1.11 tonnes. The richest inIndia produce 4.5 times more carbon emissions than the poorest.Greenpeace's fingers point unwaveringly at India's rich for cornering muchmore of the atmospheric space that all citizens should have equal right to.It warns that the rich are denying development possibilities for the poor.(The Reality of Climate Injustice, by Ashish Kothari, The Hindu, 18th No-vember,2007)

7

LOOKING BACK AT RIOIt all began at the Earth Summit at Rio or perhaps a little earlier, when the World Resource Institute put out a

report that put the blame on developing countries of the south for global warming. Then came. George Bush (thesenior) with his proposal to impose international ownership on the global forests as the solution to global warming.He left in a huff, his forest proposal shot down by the conference, complaining, ' that measures to protect the environ-ment might interfere with the workings of the free market or slow economic growth'.

The international community agreed on a toothless climate change convention, without any binding commit-ments to reduce green house gas emissions. The US did not sign the Convention.

Bush Ambushes UNCEDIt was the U.S. governmentagainst the world at theUnited Nations Conferenceon Environment and Devel-opment (UNCED), held inRio from June 3 to June 14,1992. Having earlier scuttledthe climate change treaty byinsisting that it contain nospecific greenhouse gasemission reduction targets.The U.S. belligerence wasso extreme that it threw allother players at the confer-ence - other Northern coun-tries, the Third World andthe massive number of non-governmental organization(NGO) observers - into aloose coalition, opposed tothe United States.

The United States re-sisted bold initiatives, ex-pressing concerns aboutthe ways that measures toprotect the environmentmight interfere with theworkings of the free marketor slow economic growth.

The Climate ChangeConvention negotiationsoffer the best example ofhow the United States suc-ceeded in controlling theEarth Summit's terms of de-bate. With the United Statessticking to its hard line po-sition in negotiations priorto UNCED and George Bushthreatening not to attendthe conference, the rest ofthe world's nations backeddown from their plan to es-

tablish specific emission re-duction targets in the cli-mate change treaty. The fi-nal agreement called oncountries to make their besteffort to reduce greenhousegas emissions, but did notset a goal of achieving 1990levels by the year 2000 - astandard around which allcountries but the UnitedStates had achieved con-sensus.

The Bush administra-tion received a diplomaticslap for its stand on globalwarming-related issues fromthe European Community,which announced duringthe Earth Summit that its 12members had reached an in-ternal agreement to reducegreenhouse gas emissionsto 1990 levels by 2000.

Most UNCED partici-pants, while stating thatthey had wanted the ClimateChange Convention to con-tain specific targets, hailedthe agreement as an impor-tant first step in addressingwhat many consider theworld's foremost environ-mental problem.

To counter its isolationat the conference, the Bushadministration worked hardto achieve a set of "ForestPrinciples" - downgradedfrom an initially hoped-forForest Convention - and an-nounced a "Forests for theFuture Initiative." The initia-

tive proposes to doubleworldwide international for-est conservation assistanceto $2.7 billion. As a "downpayment" on the initiative,the administration an-nounced that the UnitedStates will increase bilateralforestry assistance by $150million each year.

The Bushadministration's focus onforests did indeed offendmay developing countries.In emphasizing forests'function as carbon sink-holes, Bush clearly hoped todivert attention from theU.S. role in sabotaging theclimate change treaty. Thisdrew the ire of Third Worldcountries, which demandedthat the United States limitits world- leading contribu-tion to the greenhouse ef-fect before calling on poorercountries which are less re-sponsible for global warm-ing to undertake efforts tocombat the problem.

When the time came forRio+10 at Johannesburglast August, the US saw toit that Climate Changewasn't even an agenda itemand scuttled targets that theEuropean Union and othercountries were pushing forthe growth of renewableenergyby Robert Weissman, Sum-mit Games: Bush BustsUNCED

Why blamethe South?

A year before the RioSummit, the World Re-sources Institute (WRI),a Washington based pri-vate research group incollaboration with theUnited Nations, publisheda report titled, `WorldResources 1990-91:AGuide to the Golobal En-vironment ',(Oxford Uni-versity Press, New York).The principle contentionof the report was toblame developing coun-tries for global.

However, the Centrefor Science and Environ-ment, New Delhi afterexamining the WRI re-port came to the conclu-sion that, "A detailed lookat the data presented byWRI itself leads to theconclusion that India andChina cannot be held re-sponsible even for asingle kg ofcarbondioxide or meth-ane that is accumulatingin the earth's atmo-sphere.

The accumulation inthe earth's atmosphereof these gases is mainlythe result of the gargan-tuan consumption of thedeveloped countries,particularly the UnitedStates". What the WRIreport did was, " Heavyemphasis has beenplaced on carbondioxideproduction due to defor-estation and methaneproduction from ricefields and livestock ascompared tocarbondioxide productionfrom the use of fossil fu-els like oil and coal.

Since developingcountries are more re-sponsible for the former,the heavy emphasis ondeforestation and meth-ane generation tends tooverplay their contribu-tion while underplayingthat of the developedcountries."

(Global Warming inan Unequal World: Acase for EnvironmentalColonialism, AnilAgarwal & SunitaNaraian, Centre for Sci-ence and Environment,New Delhi, 1996.)

Forests of global contentionThe underlying theme ofthe proposed convention,which Bush wanted to takehome as his prize from theEarth Summit is as follows.

First, that the tropicalforests are in a state of cri-sis. Second, that the crisishas grown in urgency be-cause of the need to fix car-bon dioxide through for-ests. Third, that nationalgovernments in tropicalcountries are incapable ofmanaging their forests and,

hence, the need for globalintervention. But just inter-vention through money isnot enough. So, fourth,principles for sustainableforestry must be defined ata global level so that man-agement practices can beregulated.

Fifth, that these forestrypractices are best definedby supranational agencies.Sixth, that trade embargoesand codes of conduct canbe used as a means to re-

form forestry management inthe tropics. And, seventh,that this proposed systemcan be enforced through alegal convention which willensure compliance. A sys-tem of policing the world'sforests would, thus, be inplace.

The idea of a conven-tion raises many vital issuesthat the people of the Southmust take note of. There can

continued on pg8

8

up more of the atmosphere'scarbon in future, becausethe extra C02 in the atmo-sphere will make photosyn-thesis - the process bywhich all plants grow - hap-pen faster. Moreover, theextra C02 will also speed upthe decomposition ofleaves. A combination ofmore forest fires, morepests, more stress causedby changing climate, plusfaster decomposition, mayin the end cause a reductionin the amount of carbonstored in forests. As the for-ests released the C02, theywould accelerate globalwarming. Further , usingtrees even to try to compen-sate" for current emissionswould require impossiblecontinent-sized planta-tions!

According to scientistswriting in the journal, Sci-ence, concluded: "pros-pects of retrieving anthro-pogenic C02 from the atmo-sphere by enhancing natu-ral sinks are small... There isno natural 'saviour' waitingto assimilate all theanthropgenically producedC02 in the coming century.

- Facts Against MythsNewsletter, 01 Feb 2007,Vikas Adhyayan Kendra,Mumbai.

practising low tillage agri-culture, improving energyefficiency, etc. Besides, it isimportant not only to cutemissions, but also, whereemissions must increase, forthem to increase as little aspossible. Finally, cuttingemissions is importantwherever it takes place onthe earth's surface giventhat the atmosphere circu-lates so rapidly;

2. Conserving forest,planting trees, practisinglow-tillage agriculture, im-provements in energy effi-ciency, etc., can be trade foremissions cuts in a way thatmakes the emissions "cli-mate neutral". Actual emis-sions can be trade for hy-pothetical emissions reduc-tion below "business asusual" in a away which ren-ders the emissions "climateneutral". An activity in onesocial context which resultsin a short term emissions cutcan be traded for an activityin another social contextwhich results in an identicalshort-term emissions cut.For the casual or uninitiatedobserves point 2 followsfrom those of point 1. Forexample, "If you know thatsaving the Amazon is betterfor the atmosphere than

keeping one car off the road,then you ought to be ableto calculate how many carsare equivalent to saving theAmazon. The calculationsmay be difficult, but don'ssee why the problemsshould be insurmountable.But in fact while the propo-sitions of point #1 are com-mon sense, those of #2 arenonsense. Saving some-thing is important and say-ing it can be quantified andincorporated into an ac-counting system are twodifferent things.

Trees and soil are highlyrelevant to climate and tothe cycling of fossil fuelemissions, but the relationamong the three cannot bequantified in the way a cli-mate market would require.Needless to say, forests arean important part of theplanet's carbon cycle. Sea-sonal cycles the growth ofthe forests of the Northernhemisphere show up in aseasonal cycle of C02 lev-els in the atmosphere. So itis easy to see that any ma-jor impact of climate on theworld's forests could feedback into further changes inclimate - especially if theworld's forests began to die.

However, trees will soak

Forests and Climate Change

Thus, in little more thantwo decades, in short, a far-fetched, arrogant schemehatched by a single intellec-tual has virtually becomereceived wisdom! (Nodoubt it has been helpedalong not only by institu-tional and corporate politicsbut also by being associatedwith the common-senseview that says "there cansurely be no harm in plant-ing trees!?"

Everybody wants to be-lieve. But it is pertinent topoint out the distinctions!Planting and maintaining anorchard or communitywoodland, creating villageforest belts, planting treesalong highways, plantingsaplings into a garden, isone thing. The globalproject of carbon "offset"forestry is quite another. Thetrend it represents is notonly not harmless. It is dan-gerous - dangerous for eq-uity, for democratic politics,for soil, for trees, for forests,for climatic habitability it-self.

The belief is on the plau-sibility through a naturalconfusion between two setsof propositions:

1. Trees are vitally im-portant for climate. So is

be no doubt that there is anurgent need for forest pro-tection and regeneration.But it is important to askwhether it is really possibleto manage the world's for-ests by setting in place asuper-centralised system ofglobal decision-making andgovernance.

Every law gives rise to abureaucracy. And, in thiscase, the bureaucracywould be the FAO in Romeand the World Bank inWashington DC. But can acommunity of multinationalbureaucrats and techno-crats set practices for sus-

tainable forest managementacross such a wide range ofsocio-ecological diversity?

On his insistence, theworld has had to agree to aweak climate treaty. The USadministration had to takean initiative on somethingto gain its leadership roleand that something, whichthe US President had inmind, was forests.

On June 1, the WhiteHouse put out a press re-lease announcing a "For-ests for the Future Initia-tive", which hoped to cre-ate "market-type incen-tives" for forest conserva-tion as countries interestedin this money would have

to bid and compete for it.The press release alsostated that the new initiativewould "accelerate progress"towards a Global ForestAgreement .

The forest initiative hadall the political elements thatcould have turned the Rioconference in favour of theUS. It could easily have di-verted the attention of thesummit away from theNorth"s environmentalproblems to the South"sforests.

The initiative failed onlybecause of the crudeness ofthe US position, which to-tally disregarded southern

concerns. In terms of thebenefits that the initiativewould bring, the WhiteHouse had only talked ofprotection of biodiversity,maintenance of carbonsinks and reservoirs, func-tions like soil erosion con-trol, and economic benefitslike plants which can be usedto manufacture modernmedicines. There was nomention of the fact that for-ests play a crucial role as ahabitat for millions of tribalpeople across the world.

by Anil Agarwal &Sunita Narain, Forests ofglobal contention, , Downto earth, June, 1992

continued from pg7

MYTH: A most effective way in reducing C02 emissions is for the South and other countries to invest in forestsplantation to suck up carbon dioxide and to install nuclear power plants.FACT: This falsehood is based on the so called Dyson Effect (A British physicist Freeman Dyson's brainwave: to soakup the excess carbon dioxide by planting huge areas of trees) At face value this is a plausible option. However, it is aharebrained approach and even reinforces fantasy! By 1998, international climate negotiators had agreed thatputting money into large-scale tree planting was an effective way that the South could "assist" the North in "achiev-ing compliance with their quantified emissions limitation and reduction objectives".

9

UNFCC as a Process..

A process-oriented text forthe convention, as hadbeen advocated by the US,was finally agreed.

This was notwithstand-ing the fact that most devel-oped nations were unhappywith the text not containingdetailed commitments, tar-gets or timetables to cut CO2emissions.

Ultimately, however,they agreed to the process-oriented text with the com-promise that developed na-tions be required to preparenational emission invento-ries and to report periodi-cally on their programmes tocut greenhouse gas emis-sions.

One delegate said "Idon't think we could havegotten any better--becausethe commitment to specificcommitments was just notin the United States inter-est, and without them, thereis no point in having a con-vention'. Developed na-tions and the small islandstates were not prepared togo ahead with a conventionthat the US would not sign.

The Convention's ulti-

mate objective as stated inArticle 2 is to achieve:...stabilization of green-house gas concentrationsin the atmosphere at a levelthat would prevent danger-ous anthropogenic interfer-ence with the climate sys-tem. Such a level should beachieved within a timeframesufficient to allow ecosys-tems to adapt naturally toclimate change, to ensurethat food production is notthreatened and to enableeconomic development toproceed in a sustainablemanner. [emphasis not inoriginal]

This is extremely impor-tant in its ecological intentas well as being significantas sustainable developmentis advocated as a goal. Para-graphs 4 and 5 of Article 3also state sustainable devel-opment principles.

The Parties have a rightto, and should, promotesustainable development.Policies and measures toprotect the climate systemagainst human-inducedchange should be appropri-ate for the specific condi-

tions of each Party andshould be integrated withnational developmentprogrammes, taking into ac-count that economic devel-opment is essential foradopting measures to ad-dress climate change.

The Parties should co-operate to promote a sup-portive and open interna-tional economic system thatwould lead to sustainableeconomic growth and devel-opment in all Parties, par-ticularly developing coun-try Parties, thus enablingthem better to address theproblems of climate change.Measures taken to combatclimate change, includingunilateral ones, should notconstitute a means of arbi-trary or unjustifiable dis-crimination or a disguisedrestriction on internationaltrade.

Inclusion of the precau-tionary principle as stated inArticle 3.3 is also very sig-nificant in that it is an im-portant environmental man-agement guide in a situationof scientific uncertainty.

The Parties should take

Overall the Climate Change Convention should be seen as an evolutionarydocument. The ultimate effectiveness of the Convention now lies in the strength

of the protocols yet to be formulated.

precautionary measures toanticipate, prevent or mini-mize the causes of climatechange and mitigate its ad-verse effects. Where thereare threats of serious or ir-reversible damage, lack offull scientific certaintyshould not be used as a rea-son for postponing suchmeasures, taking into ac-count that policies and mea-sures to deal with climatechange should be cost-ef-fective so as to ensure glo-bal benefits at the lowestpossible cost.

Also, the reporting pro-cess subparagraphs of Ar-ticle 4.2, which are a com-promise which was soughtfrom the US, although weaklegally are politically inter-esting in that they signalthat developed countriesmust make commitments tostabilise emissions by theend of the century aiming at1990 levels and have thesecommitments reviewed bythe Conference of the Par-ties periodically.

(International ClimatePolicy Development andImplementation, ClimaticImpacts Centre Annual Re-port 1993. North Ryde,NSW, Australia: MacquarieUniversity)

Privatising ForestsA particularly popular West-ern technique is promotingmonoculture plantations inthe South to "sequester" or"eliminate" CO2 althoughthe science of such seques-tering is still very uncertain.

Though there is a scien-tific consensus that carbonstored above ground (intrees) is not equal to carbonstored below ground(unmined/unused fossil fu-els).

This has not stopped thecrusaders for emissionstrading to claim "carbonneutrality" and "carbon off-setting" through tree plant-ing and other means. In-deed, a new and profitableindustry of "carbon neu-

tral" products has devel-oped with producers target-ing environment consciousconsumers through claimsthat their products are madefrom, say, "carbon offset-ting" plantation wood.

“Carbon sinks” such asforests and oceans, etc., canonly qualify for emissioncredits if their managementis "officially" done. Oldgrowth rainforests where in-digenous peoples havelived for centuries do notqualify though corporate-run tree plantations do.

What is going on here?It is not at all difficult to un-derstand. The approach totackling the issue of globalwarming is of a piece withthe general approach of the

WTO and of the newneoliberal economic dogma:private ownership and con-trol plus market allocation isthe key to everything. Thatis to say, it is aboutprivatising water, education,health, social security, etc.,emissions trading is basedon the principle that thebest way to tackle environ-mental problems (and pro-mote profitable "green capi-talism") is to move towardsprivatising the global com-mons and resources, i.e.,promote theinstitutionalisation of aproperty rights regime forthe atmosphere itself. Andsince emissions trading isthe key mechanism for tack-ling environmental prob-

lems, it is hardly surprisingthat there is growing pres-sure for the rules of suchtrading to conform to thegeneral rules for governingtrade as embodied in theWTO system.

Not only does this makecorporate polluters andneoliberal economists(whose very disciplinetreats the environment withtheoretical contempt as"natural capital") happy, butwill also most likely lead tofurther reducing regulationof emissions trading so asto avoid trade conflicts.

Too Little, Too Bad,Achin Vanaik, The AsianAge, 23 March 2005

10

THE KYOTO AGENDABy the time, the parties to the Climate Change Convention converged in Kyoto, the climate change agenda hadmoved far beyond its original environmental or sustainability concerns. It was now increasingly seen as a trade andbusiness issue. Carbon trading and corporate concerns dominated deliberations.

The Kyoto Protocol opened the doors for private corporations to assume important and central roles in meetingnational GHG emission reduction targets.

This was accompanied on the other side by the marginalisation of civil society as an important player, which istoday deeply divided, dis-empowerd or co-opted to promote the business agenda of climate change agreement..

The Kyoto Protocol was as one commentator put it, ‘Acceptance of [the carbon trading provisions of the KyotoProtocol] represents an article of faith, faith in the free market and faith in the process of globalisation. It rests on anideological stance

Developed Vs DevelopingThe Kyoto Protocol is offi-cially the first global legallybinding contract aimed atreducing greenhouse gasemissions. A hundred andforty-one parties have nowratified the agreement. Ifany of the participatingcountries exceed their pro-posed 2012 target, they willhave to make the promisedreductions from the 2012target, and an additional30% more during the nextperiod. The EU and Japanhave already promised toreduce pollution by 8%from their respective 1990levels.

However, Kyoto stilllacks teeth because theUnited States, the world'slargest greenhouse gas pol-luter, says signing up wouldruin the US economy, andthat the pact wrongly disre-gards developing countries.He was also concernedabout the pressure on"industrialised" countriesto cut back on emissionswhile developing countriesweren't expected to cuttheirs back as well. In manyways, the debate over cli-mate change reflects thelarger debate about globalequity and justice, and thestruggle between the richand the poor. Developingcountries opposed theplans by blaming the prob-lem of global warming onthe practices of wealthier,developed nations. Indiaand China, in particular, ar-gued the case for the devel-

oping countries, refusing tocommit to any proposalsthat could limit their indus-trial development.

So where does that leave

us? Emissions in Americacontinue to rise and are now11% higher than they werein 1990. Most countries thathave signed up to Kyotoalso admit that meeting theirKyoto targets will be diffi-cult; nations are already fall-ing behind.

One of the things thatpeople are excited about asa possible solution and apotential win-win situationfor both developed and de-veloping countries is theclean development mecha-nism (CDM). This is one ofthe "flexibility mechanisms"authorised in the Kyoto Pro-tocol. The CDM is a form ofjoint implementation be-

tween industrialised na-tions and developing coun-tries. The mechanism is de-signed to allowindustrialised nations tomeet their commitments in a

flexible manner, and, at thesame time, allows develop-ing countries not bound bythe protocol to participatein the process of globalgreenhouse gases (GHG)mitigation.

The CDM is supposedto be a market-based way tocombat climate change.Through it, developedcountries may invest inbankable projects in devel-oping countries by payingthe extra cost of upgradingto cleaner technology. Inturn, they get credits for theamount of emissions re-duced.

But many developingnations contend that these

rights should eventually beallocated on a per capitabasis, since that is the fair-est and most democraticway of sharing an overallglobal limit to greenhousegas emissions among theworld's people. Northernindustrialised countrieshave always argued for a'rights-by-income (GDP)'approach, since largereconomies, by virtue oftheir output, would natu-rally emit more GHGs thansmaller economies. Devel-oping countries have chal-lenged this status quo, ar-guing for a 'rights-per-capita' approach. Each per-son on the planet, they be-lieve, should have equal at-mospheric property rightsand therefore equal GHGconsumption rights. An-other flaw in the carbon-trad-ing regime is that industrialnations are currently permit-ted to buy as many low-costreductions in developingnations as they can -- andthey can bank those reduc-tions as far into the futureas they choose. That meansthat when poor nations areobliged to begin cuttingtheir own emissions, duringa later phase of the proto-col, they will be left with onlythe most expensive optionsas the cheapest ones willhave been bought up by theindustrial nations.

by Aditi Sen,InfoChange News & Fea-tures, August 2005

The Kyoto Protocol was drawn up in 1997 to implementthe UNFCC. According to the protocol, industrialisednations that sign up to the treaty are legally bound toreduce worldwide emissions of six greenhouse gases(collectively) by an average of 5.2% below their 1990levels, by 2008-2012.

However it took seven years for the protocol to finallybecome international law. For it to come fully into force,the pact had to be ratified by countries accounting forat least 55% of 1990 carbon dioxide emissions. Withcountries like the US and Australia unwilling to comeon board, the key to ratification came when Russia,which accounted for 17% of 1990 emissions, signedup to the agreement on November 5, 2004.

"Developing Nations Rebuff G-8 on Curbing Pollutants," proclaimed the recent New York Times headline.You had to read through most of the article to discover that the main objection of those pesky "developing nations"representatives was to establishing a long-range goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (50 percent by 2050),without proportionate commitments from the major industrialized countries to nearer-term commitments-at least 20percent reductions by 2020, as accepted by most European governments-that would facilitate meaningful progresstoward the more distant goal.

Development Dialogue no.48, September, 2006

11

Limitations of Kyoto ProtocolAt the Rio Earth Summit in1992 the world's govern-ments signed up to theUnited Nations FrameworkConvention (UNFCCC). TheConvention contains twoimportant principles :

the precautionary prin-ciple - the conventionrecognises that despite un-avoidable scientific uncer-tainties about climatechange and its impacts it isimperative to take a precau-tionary approach and to re-duce global greenhouse gasemissions by 60 percent ormore as soon as possible.

the equity principle - theconvention recognises thatthere needs to be a conver-gence of national emissionslevels based on the prin-ciple of equal rights. That

is, everyone must have thesame right to use energy, orto produce greenhousegases, or to use thepollutionabsorbing capac-ity of the natural environ-ment. Emissions Targets -Inadequate and Unjust

The Kyoto Protocol hasset emissions reduction tar-gets for industrialised coun-tries (the main producers ofa carbon dioxide) at a mere5.2 percent, on averagefrom 1990 levels by 2012.This is widely recognised asinadequate to prevent dan-gerous climate change. Ac-cording to the Inter-govern-mental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC) - a 60 per-cent reduction in carbon di-oxide emissions (the maingreenhouse gas) is neces-

sary to bring levels in theatmosphere down to eventwice pre-industrialised lev-els.

The Kyoto Protocol makesno attempt at convergenceor even to recognise theprinciple of equal rights. In-stead of being based onequal shares or rights foreach individual, greenhousegas entitlements have beenbased on national 'currentemissions'. By setting in-dustrial countries targetsbased on their 1990 emis-sions levels the Protocol ef-fectively gives the right tothat level of emissions, atleast until 2012. Meanwhileit fails to acknowledge or setany emissions rights for de-veloping countries. In otherwords, it enshrines the cur-

rent inequitable and unjustlevel of emissions. It allowsindustrialised countries tocontinue to produce green-house gases beyond theirfair share and by setting noequitable per capita entitle-ments to use of the atmo-sphere, it risks denyingpresent and future genera-tions of developing coun-tries the use of their fairshare. The Kyoto Protocoland the proposed' flexiblemechanisms' discussed inThe Hague fail to fulfil ei-ther of these principles.They come nowhere nearthe precautionary target setby the FCCC and they ig-nore the principle of equalrights. That is, they will beineffective and they are un-just.Eco-Ethic Newsletter, 01Jul 2002

POLITICS IN THE POST-KYOTO WORLD

Klaus Topfer, the newexecutive director of UNEPsaid at the same meeting inWTO, that the Kyoto Pro-tocol was about the cre-ation of a new propertyrights regime for a globalresource - the atmosphere.But he also went on to saythat in his experience, estab-lishing these rights was anissue fraught with tensionand conflict. That may beso. But it is vital that theserights be established. Thedeveloping countries thatare being asked to "assist"in meeting carbon reductiontargets of the industrialisedworld, must do so, with theirfull entitlements over theatmosphere, a commonproperty of humankind.What is needed instead is aframework built on the con-cept of "equal per capitaentitlements".

They must insist thatthis "commodification" ofthe atmosphere - without anappropriate framework ofrights - is like the appropria-tion of the West by thecolonisers. This is clearlyimmoral. And unacceptable.

One of the most envi-ronmentally unfriendly de-cisions of Kyoto was toagree to set a reduction tar-get of 5 per cent by Annex Icountries on their 1990 lev-els. This has set a precedentin target-manipulation thatwill only lead to more green-house gas emissions. Inhindsight, Kyoto was amassive exercise in jugglingbooks of rich countries cli-mate accounts. And what ismost unfortunate is that itwill now force each countryto fiddle its own carbonbudget.

What was agreed atKyoto was to set a target ofreduction of "at least 5 percent below 1990 levels in thecommitment period 2008-2012." The operative wordis 1990 - as it essentiallymeans that the country hasto reduce its emissions by 5per cent below what it emit-ted in that year.

Take the case of Austra-lia. In 1990, as much as 30per cent of the country'semissions were from defor-estation. Emissions whichare still present in the atmo-sphere and are causing glo-bal warming. But instead ofbeing penalised for creatingthe problem in the firstplace, Australia has beenable to use its high emis-sions to its advantage bywinning the right to countany improvement from this

position as its nationalcredit. And, as its defores-tation rate is already con-trolled, Australia can actu-ally increase its emissionsabove and beyond that fig-ure by 8 per cent.

What then is the impli-cation of the 'baseline' forthe future? If this innovativeclimate accountancy is ac-cepted as the method of cal-culating a nation's targetsthen it would serve devel-oping countries to actuallyincrease its emissions asfast as possible.This precedent being set bythe emission-profligateNorth is going to destroy,not save, the worlds climatesystem.

POLITICS IN THEPOST-KYOTO WORLD,CSEBriefing Paper 2, 2005

The Kyoto protocol is increasingly being understood not as an environmental agreement but a trading agree-ment. Speakers at a recently organised symposium by the World Trade Organisation noted that the Protocolcould well be the most significant trading agreement of the century.

CC and Profits

The study is the first In-dia report of the Carbon Dis-closure Project (CDP) on theaction undertaken by com-panies to mitigate the ad-verse impact of climate

According to the report,79% of Indian companiessurveyed saw several com-mercial risks arising from cli-mate change. These in-cluded following emission-

reduction norms, dealingwith shrinking resourcessuch as water, and thoserelated to changing con-sumer preferences for envi-ronmentally responsiblecompanies and products.

The report said that 85%of the Indian companiessaw an opportunity in theglobal move to combat glo-bal warming. India has

hogged the major share incarbon projects under theKyoto Protocol.

Almost half the compa-nies surveyed said theywere looking at emissiontrading opportunities and21% already have CDMprojects in the pipeline.

Climate change is an op-portunity, not a threat,http://www.livemint.com/2007/11/22232930/

Indian companies view climate change more as an op-portunity than a risk because they see themselves earn-ing revenue from the Clean Development Mechanism(CDM), according to a new study.

12

"The Kyoto Protocol totally avoided the material challenge of stopping activities thatlead to higher emissions and the political challenge of regulation of the polluters andmaking the polluters pay in accordance with principles adopted at the Earth Summit inRio. Instead, Kyoto put in place the mechanism of emissions trading which in effectrewarded the polluters by assigning them rights to the atmosphere and trading in theserights to pollute."- Vandana Shiva.

There is a widespread crisis of confi-dence in the CDM. All but the mostdogmatically market oriented NGOs areno longer willing to entertain it as be-ing any part of the solution. The USGovernment Accountability Office, the"audit, evaluation and investigativearm of Congress," recently released adetailed report that questions the cred-ibility of the scheme. A statement fromthe International Forum of IndigenousPeoples on Climate Change to the UNclimate talks in Bali testified that CDMprojects were being carried out "with-out the free prior and informed con-sent of Indigenous Peoples."

The Kyoto Protocol outlines thethree purposes for the CDM: assist inthe achievement of sustainable devel-opment, contribute to attaining theenvironmental goals of the broaderclimate change treaty, and assistNorthern countries in complying withtheir emissions reduction commit-ments.

A result for Northern companiesThe first two objectives have been

abysmal failures. The third has been aresounding success, but paradoxicallyso. Meanwhile numerous studieshave cast profound doubt on the abil-ity of the CDM to bring climate ben-

efits. A recent study from Stanford'sEnergy and Sustainability Program

suggested that up to two thirds ofCDM projects didn't bring about anyemissions cuts.

The CDM has provided a meansfor Northern governments and com-panies to 'outsource' their responsi-bility for taking necessary steps to-wards a low-carbon economy. Thisaspect of the CDM's 'success' high-lights the climate injustice underpin-ning the system. The winners are en-ergy intensive companies, whoseprofit margins have benefited enor-mously in the short term through thelucrative trade in the credits them-

selves. Because of fundamental flawsin the design of the CDM, industryhas been able to buy cheap carboncredits to meet their emissions com-mitments and avoid the cost of shift-ing to low carbon technologies. Addthese savings to potential windfallsfrom new trading options in derivativesand other exotic financial services andits no surprise there is such a 'goldrush' for this lucrative market.

Conversely, Southern countrieshave lost out enormously. Manyprojects, such as the waste incinera-tor in India, have been imposed oncommunities without their prior, in-formed consent.

CDM financing has entrencheddirty development by acting as a fi-nancial subsidy for big industrial pol-luters such as chemical factories, coalfired power stations and pulp and pa-per mills. The CDM has been promotedat the expense of an existing adapta-tion fund and the truly clean technol-ogy transfer that is so urgentlyneeded.

Offsets Under Kyoto: a dirty dealfor the South Kevin Smith 5 December 2008, tni.org

Winners and LosersThe CDM has largely been rewarding big industrial polluters in the global South that contribute

nothing towards sustainable development.

Emissions Trading whichincludes carbon emissionstrading is very similar to thetrading of commodities in amarket place. Emissionstrading allows countries toexchange emissionallowances.

JI is a mechanism where adeveloped country canreceive "emissionsreduction units" when ithelps to finance projectsthat reduce net emissions inanother developed country.

The Clean DevelopmentMechanism (CDM) allows adeveloped country toimplement a project thatreduces GHG emissions, orsubject to constraints, removesgreenhouse gases by carbonsequestration in a developingcountry.

13

The world's biggest carbon offset mar-ket, the Kyoto Protocol's clean devel-opment mechanism (CDM), is run bythe UN, administered by the WorldBank, and is intended to reduce emis-sions by rewarding developing coun-tries that invest in clean technologies.In fact, evidence is accumulating thatit is increasing greenhouse gas emis-sions behind the guise of promotingsustainable development. The mis-guided mechanism is handing out bil-lions of dollars to chemical, coal andoil corporations and the developers ofdestructive dams - in many cases forprojects they would have built any-way.

Any type of technology other thannuclear power can apply for credits.

The CDM FraudEven new coal plants, if these can beshown to be even a marginal improve-ment upon existing plants, can receiveoffset income. A massive 4,000MWcoal plant on the coast of Gujarat, In-dia, is expected soon to apply for CERs.The plant will spew into the atmo-sphere 26m tonnes of CO2 per year forat least 25 years. It will be India's third- and the world's 16th - largest sourceof CO2 emissions.

Off-the-record, industry insiderswill admit that deceitful claims in CDMapplications are standard practice. Thecarbon trading industry lobby group,the International Emissions TradingAssociation (IETA), has stated thatproving the intent of developers ap-

plying for the CDM "is an almost im-possible task". Industry representa-tives have complained that "good sto-rytellers" can get a project approved,"while bad storytellers may fail even ifthe project is really additional".

One glaring signal that many of theprojects being approved by the CDM'sexecutive board are non-additional isthat almost three-quarters of projectswere already complete at the time ofapproval. It would seem clear that aproject that is already built cannotneed extra income in order to be built.

A rapidly growing industry of car-bon brokers and consultants is lob-bying for the CDM to be expanded andits rules to be weakened further.

Discredited strategy by PatrickMcCully, The Guardian, 21 May2008

REDD: Reduced Emissions fromDeforestation in Developing Countries

REDD initiatives, as they arecurrently being discussedwithin international climatenegotiations, propose topay developing countriesfor the carbon value of theirforests. It is believed thatthese payments could shiftthe balance away from theeconomic incentives cur-rently favoring deforesta-tion, thus making sustain-able forest management amore profitable alternative.However, issues surround-ing the design and imple-mentation of such a mecha-nism are complicated andcontentious. Among sev-eral outstanding questionsis how to pay for REDD,since it will undoubtedlyrequire substantial re-sources to be transferred todeveloping countries if it isto generate meaningfulemissions reductions.

The global carbon mar-ket established under theKyoto Protocol--now val-ued at over $30 billionworldwide--has recentlygenerated excitement as apotential payment mecha-nism. A 2005 proposal by thecountries of Papua NewGuinea and Costa Rica for-malized interest in a systemknown as "CompensatedReduction" (CR), wherebydeveloping countries areawarded credits, tradableon the international carbonmarket, for reducing na-tional deforestation ratesbelow a baseline level. Pro-ponents of CR, includingmany developing countries

and several major environ-mental organizations, see amarket-based REDD regimeas the greatest potentialsource of funding for forestconservation and the bestway to capitalize on thecost-effectiveness of lower-ing global emissionsthrough reduced deforesta-tion.

In December of 2007, theWorld Bank launched the$250 million Forest CarbonPartnership Facility (FCPF),meant to build capacity forREDD in developing coun-tries while providing a pilotprogram to test Compen-sated Reduction. Carboncredits earned through re-duced deforestation arecurrently not eligible fortrading within the interna-tional carbon market estab-lished under the Kyoto Pro-

tocol, so FCPF credits areexpected to be traded on thevoluntary market.Design and ImplementationChallenges for REDD

A carbon market-basedfunding mechanism, suchas Compensated Reduction,is the current forerunneramong various REDD pro-posals, but numerous tech-nical issues pose significantobstacles to design andimplementation If they arenot fully resolved, a market-based REDD could fail toachieve positive outcomes,or even increase globalemissions if developingcountries are allowed to sellcarbon offsets from reduceddeforestation that do notcorrespond to actual emis-sions reductions.

For these reasons, non-market options for funding

REDD must also be consid-ered, such as using existingdevelopment assistance,creating a new dedicatedfund, or even redirectingrevenues from a carbon taxor national cap and tradeprograms. But even if out-standing issues can be re-solved, there is a real possi-bility that neither a market-based nor a non-marketREDD program will yielddesired outcomes when itcomes to mitigating climatechange or protecting forestservices and communities,meaning that other policyalternatives must also beconsidered.

Its role as part of an in-ternational agreement oncombating climate changewill be decided in December2009 at Copenhagen.http://earthtrends.wri.org

The Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)scheme could create the climate regime's largest ever loophole, giving North-ern polluters yet another opportunity to buy their way out of emissions reduc-tions. With no mention of biodiversity or Indigenous Peoples' rights, this schememight give a huge incentive for countries to sell off their forests, expel Indig-enous and peasant communities, and transform forests into tree plantationsunder corporate-control. Plantations are not forests. Privatisation and dispos-session through REDD or any other mechanisms must be stopped. The WorldBank is attempting to carve a niche in the international climate change regime.This is unacceptable as the Bank continues to fund polluting industries anddrive deforestation by promoting industrial logging and agrofuels. The Bank'srecently launched Climate Investment Funds goes against government initia-tives at the UN and promotes dirty industries such as coal, while forcing devel-oping countries into the fundamentally unequal aid framework of donor andrecipient. The World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility aiming to financeREDD through a forest carbon mechanism serves the interest of private com-panies and opens the path for commodification of forests.

These developments are to be expected. Market ideology has totally infil-trated the climate talks, and the UNFCCC negotiations are now like trade fairshawking investment opportunities

14

There are fundamental theo-retical flaws in the whole capand trade scheme even be-fore you look at the actualrecord of its implementa-tion. This is because thescheme was never set up todirectly tackle the key taskof a rapid transition awayfrom fossil fuel extraction,over-production and over-consumption, but soughtinstead to quantifying exist-ing pollution as a means tocreate a new tradable com-modity. Within this frame-work, traders invariably optfor the cheapest creditsavailable at the time, butwhat is cheap in the short-term is not the same as whatis environmentally effectiveor socially just.

Some of the key prob-lems with the cap and tradeapproach are:

- The "trade" compo-nent does not reduce anyemissions. It simply allowscompanies to choose be-tween cutting their ownemissions or buyingcheaper "carbon credits,"which are supposed to rep-resent reductions elsewhere.

- The "cap" has too

So what's wrong with cap and trade?

many holes and sometimescaps nothing. The cap is

only as tight as the leaststringent part of the wholesystem. This is becausecredits are sold by thosewith a surplus, and thecheapest way to produce asurplus is to be given toomany credits in the firstplace ("hot air" credits as aresult of caps being set toohigh). The aim of trading isto find the cheapest solu-

tion for polluting industry,and it is consistently

cheaper to buy "hot air"credits than to actually re-duce emissions.

Cap setting is a politicalprocess that is highly sus-ceptible to corporate lobby-ing which means that thereis invariable over-allocationof pollution permits. In fact,lobbying is encouragedthrough extensive industry"stakeholder" involvement.

- Offsets loosen the cap.While cap and trade intheory limits the availabilityof pollution permits, "off-set" projects are a licence toprint new ones. When thetwo systems are brought to-gether, they tend to under-mine each other - since oneapplies a cap and the otherlifts it. An offset is essen-tially a permit to pollute be-yond the cap.So who profited from carbontrading?

Companies receive mostcarbon credits for free. Thisis equivalent to a subsidy -and with allocations madeon the basis of historicalemissions, the largest sub-sidy goes to the dirtiest in-dustry (especially coal-firedpower plants).

Windfall profits alsoarise from an accountingtrick around "opportunitycosts." Power companieschoose to do the cheapestthing to meet their ETS tar-get - which is usually buy-ing Clean DevelopmentMechanism (CDM) credits- but passing on costs as ifthey were doing the mostexpensive - actually reduc-ing emissions. Even powercompanies receiving freecredits from the ETS havenevertheless passed on thecost of these credits to con-sumers. Research by mar-ket-analysts Point Carbonand WWF calculated thatthe likely "windfall" profitsmade by power companiesin phase II could be between•23 and •71 billion, and thatthese profits were concen-trated in the countries withthe highest level of emis-sions.

Carbon offsets have se-rious negative social andlocal environmental impacts

The use of "develop-ment" rhetoric masks thefundamental injustice of off-setting, which hands a newrevenue stream to some ofthe most highly polluting in-dustries in the South, whilesimultaneously offeringcompanies and govern-ments in the North a meansto delay changing their ownindustrial practices and en-ergy usage.

Oscar Reyes Red Pep-per magazine.http://www.stwr.org

In practice, carbon offset projects have most of the times resulted in land grabs, localenvironmental and social conflicts, the displacement of Indigenous Peoples´ fromtheir territories, as well as the repression of local communities and movements.

.

Carbon Trading is all about minting money offthe climate crisis; not on bringing about a changein the current system of heavy subsidies for thefossil fuel industry. The carbon market is thusperverse to say the least. It offers a false solutionto environmental problems. The truth about theglobal climate crisis is beyond economicperspectives. Hence, the whole carbon trade is anidea ill-suited to the climate change problem.Above all, like all new markets, carbon marketsstrive both to establish property rights and tomake a range of different things equivalent so thatthey can be exchanged. This is true of both aspectsof carbon markets: cap and trade (or emissionstrading) on the one hand, and offset trading (ortrading in project-based carbon credits) on theother...- Myths of the Carbon Trade FAM, VAK, Mumbai

Civil Society and Carbon TradingCarbon trading itself is no corporate conspiracy, but rather a joint invention ofcivil society, business and the state. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs)have been nearly as prominent in Sits development as private corporations.Although pollution trading derived from the theories of economists working inuniversities and think tanks, it was written into the 1990 US Clean Air Act Amend-ments by Environmental Defence, a corporate-friendly NGO that subsequentlypushed for it to be included both in the Kyoto Protocol The Washington-basedNGO World Resources Institute (partly bankrolled by government and UN agen-cies, international fi nancial institutions and corporations such as Monsanto,TotalFinaElf, Shell, BP, and Cargill Dow) tirelessly lobbied for carbon tradingalongside the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and othercorporate pressure groups.

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), an organisation with an annualbudget 3.5 times that of the World Trade Organisation. WWF also helped de-velop an eco-label for the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanismprojects.Greenpeace, for its part, has moved from being critical of corporate lobby groupsand carbon trading to complete acceptance. As forest conservation NGOs suchas the Nature Conservancy andConservation International move in to mop up corporate and World Bank finance being off ered for 'carbon sinks', other NGOs confine themselves to try-ing to reform or 'contain the damage' done by trading programmes such as theClean Development Mechanism (CDM).

Most Northern members of the largest NGO grouping on climate change, theClimate Action Network, have thrown their support behind the carbon market,often demoting themselves to the role of advisers to governments on suchmatters as national emissions allocations. Critical NGOs are being continuallyurged 'to unite behind an entirely bizarre, incomprehensible, and totally cor-ruptible system of carbon trading'.

Development Dialogue October 2007

15

Global carbon trading hasgained momentum. TheWorldwatch Institute, draw-ing from various studies,places the total value of thetrade in 2007 at $59.2 billion,an 80 per cent increase over2006. As the 2012 deadlinefor reducing emission levelsapproaches, the volume ofcarbon trading will be enor-mous. Asian countries arethe biggest sellers and west-ern countries the biggestbuyers. A World Bank re-port on the 2007 carbon mar-ket shows that China has amarket share of 61 pe r centand India 12 per cent. TheGovernment of India, as apart of its commitment to theKyoto Protocol, set up in2003 a National Clean Devel-opment Mechanism Au-thority, which has been re-viewing proposals for car-bon credits. However, thefinal credits are issued by theExecutive Board of theClean Development Mecha-nism at the United NationsFramework Convention ofClimate Change (UNFCCC).India has garnered 35 mil-lion of the 102 million Certi-fied Emission Reductions(CERs) issued up to Janu-ary 2008.

This augurs well for thecountry and its entrepre-neurs. Nevertheless, a few

For transparent carbon trading

issues surface time andagain to remind us how thesystem can be improved.The pricing of CERs hasbecome a major issue. Stud-ies by groups such as theCentre for Science and En-vironment, New Delhi andby the New Zealand govern-ment on CER pricing have

highlighted the lack oftransparency. This hindersthe just distribution of ben-efits and paves the way formanipulation. The dataavailable indicate that theprice of CERs ranges from$11 to $22 and naturallysuch wide variation raises

troubling questions. Argu-ments for lower pricesemphasise scale, risk, anddelay in delivery of CERs asdetermining factors. How-ever, the sellers who bear theburden of investment anddelivery should be able toreap the benefits of betterprices where they exist. In-formation on prevailingprices should be easily andfreely available. This be-comes important in the con-text of calls for includingcommunity projects in thecarbon trade. Whethertransparency can be im-posed through a regulatoryauthority or by an alterna-tive method needs to be dis-cussed and quickly settled.Reducing emissions atsource is the best optionbut until that is achieved aregulated carbon market isa necessity. For India, thereis yet another issue. To theircredit, private entrepreneurspredominate in the list ofprojects approved byUNFCCC. Governmentprojects and the public sec-tor, which have not shownany serious interest in ac-cumulating CERs, need to beprodded to follow their ex-ample.

The Hindu, Chennai,13 Feb 2008

Challenge to Kyoto Carbon TradingThe market for trading rights to spewcarbon dioxide, created by the 1997Kyoto Protocol to reduce global warm-ing, is under attack by developingcountries and environmentalists asnegotiators hammer out a sequel treaty.

Investors who trade pollution per-mits are fighting proposals to limit orkill a United Nations program that letsEuropean companies offset require-ments to cut emissions by bankrollinglow-carbon projects in emergingeconomies. The process creates cred-its that the World Bank says ac-counted for 26 percent of the $126 bil-lion of allowances that traded in thecarbon market in 2008.

China and Mexico want wealthiergovernments to subsidize clean-upprojects directly, with the Chinese say-ing investments from Western compa-nies should "not be used to offset"their own cuts. Greenpeace Interna-tional says the UN system delays richnations' response to greenhouse gas-ses. Their approaches would reducethe private sector's role in, and poten-tial profits from, the global-warmingfight. Ending offsets would limit trad-

ing to permits that European Uniongovernments issue under a related re-gime that makes up 73 percent of themarket.

"There is a growing fear that thewhole low-carbon investment scene isbeing positioned toward the publicsector," said Henry Derwent, presidentof the Geneva-based International

Trading LobbyThe lobby -- which includes Goldman Sachs GroupInc., Morgan Stanley, Barclays Plc, JPMorgan Chase &Co. and 168 other firms -- argues that climate changecan't be solved without a profit-driven market. Theorganization and its members haven't disclosed howmuch they earned from trading carbon permits.

While the total amount of CO2 permits tradeddoubled last year, the market remains tiny comparedwith worldwide oil futures, where as much moneychanges hands in less than two days. New CarbonFinance, a London-based investment adviser thattracks the market, predicts the CO2 market will reach$3 trillion by 2020.

The Paris-based International Energy Agency saysthe world faces flooding, droughts and food shortagesunless it spends at least an additional $4.2 trillion by2030 to reduce power-plant emissions and boost en-ergy efficiency.

For carbon investors, the "worst case scenario"would be richer nations making direct payments topoorer countries and industry-based emissions trad-ing in developing nations being largely controlled bynational governments rather than a single regulator,said Dirk Forrister, who helped advise former U.S.President Bill Clinton on climate change.

Trading of emerging-market credits "needs to bebuilt on a private-sector model," said Forrister, nowmanaging director of Natsource LLC, a New York com-pany that makes money creating, buying and sellingpollution rights.

Emissions Trading Association. "Thepublic sector has no more than a tinypercentage of the money needed tosolve the climate problem," saidDerwent, Tony Blair's climate adviserwhen he was U.K. prime minister.

by Mathew Carr, Bloomberg, June19, 2009

Third biggest CO2 emitterIndia is the third biggest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, withstate-owned NTPC topping the list of companies belching the deadlygas, according to the new data released by a Washington-based think-tank.

The Center for Global Development (CGD) said India figured at thethird position in the list of biggest CO2 emitters through power genera-tion after China and the US.

Of the 638,000,000 tonnes of CO2 emission by India every year,NTPC alone contributes 186,000,000 tonnes, which constitutes about 30per cent of the total gas release, the data revealed. Talcher power plantin Orissa operated by the company has the notoriety of emitting thebiggest quantity of CO2.

When contacted, NTPC officials said in Delhi: "We are among themost efficient producers of power using fossil fuels. NTPC is the secondbest in the world, emitting only 800 grams of CO2 per kwh of electricitygeneration. The Times of India, Mumbai, 01 Sep 2008

16

Deforestation is Cheaper!

So it was that, at the Poznanconference, rich countriesaggressively pushed a newclimate-tack. They cannotreduce at home, so theyhave decided to find everyway to (1) 'offset' their fos-sil fuel emissions by buy-ing emission reduction cer-tificates in developing

countries; or (2) pay to pro-tect emission-absorbingforests; or (3) simply pumptheir carbon deep into theground. Indeed, every dirtyway not to cut, but to pay,bribe and cajole others tocut will do. Then if all thisfails there is the easyfallback: use China and In-

dia as punching bags aswell as excuses for not tak-ing on hard reductions athome.

In Poznan the effort wasto devise a mechanism topay developing countries to'avoid' deforestation. Why?Because the Nick Stern re-port said 20 per cent of theworld's emissions were fromdeforestation in the devel-oping world. Now, this hasbecome a quick-fix solution:stop deforestation and takea 20 per cent advantage inour carbon balance sheet,without doing anything athome.

As a result the mecha-nism, in negotiators' par-lance called redd or 'reduc-ing emissions from defores-tation and forest degrada-tion' naturally, in develop-ing countries is being builtwith absolutely no under-standing that forests hereare not mere carbon sticksto beat the world's con-science with, or sinks forgarbage carbon, but habi-tats of millions of people.

There is no comprehen-

sion of the role forests playin a developing country'seconomy or in people'slives. Instead, the intent ismisbegotten and single-minded: pay as cheaply aspossible to buy rights overforests in the developingworld and build as manyaccounting and certificationprocedures as possible tomake sure there are no 'leak-ages' in the transaction. Itis clearly a great businessfor the crashed and failedconsultancy companies ofthe western world creativecarbon accounting, thistime in the forests of thepoor.

So, this opportunity,which could have enjoinedthe interests of forest-economies and its people toplant, protect and manageforests so that the worldwould in addition get thebenefit of reducing emis-sions, is being lost to theself-interest of greedy pol-luters.

(2009 is full of promise,Down To Earth, Magazine,01 Jan 2009)

So what are the alternatives?

Carbon markets shouldbe dismantled, starting withoffsets. A clear intention todiscontinue carbon marketscan fatally undermine themeven in advance of legisla-tive action. Alternativesthen need to be developedthat are properly consultedand developed togetherwith local communities toprevent a repeat of the dis-possession and social injus-tice caused by offsettingschemes.

A range of different ap-proaches will be needed butmay include:- Recognition of existingclimate solutions. The vastrange of solutions that al-ready exist - which tend tobe distinguished by theirsensitivity to the local con-texts in which they operate,are overlooked in favour ofthe accumulation of large-scale "technological fixes"or market-based schemes.- Leave fossil fuels in theground. Proposals to haltnew coal power plants and

the exploration of new andoften "uncoventional"sources of oil extraction areat the frontline of thestruggle for climate justice -and should form part of arapid transition to a post-fossil fuel economy.- Rediscovering environ-mental protection. There area broad range of environ-mental policy instrumentsthat have proven to be moreeffective than market-basedapproaches - ranging fromefficiency standards for elec-trical appliances and build-ings to feed-in tariffs forrenewables. The rediscov-ery of such measures couldform part of a solution.- New revenues: tax and/or end currency and fuelspeculation. Rather than aregressive carbon tax, rev-enue can be generated by atax on currency speculation.A heavy tax or an end tospeculation on fossil fuelprices would also help as atransitional measure. Thisshould be accompanied by

pro-active policy measuresto tackle fuel poverty, suchas a ban on pre-pay meter-ing.- Renewable energyshould be supported butnot uncritically - with the in-volvement of local popula-tions and not as basis forsustaining expansions infossil use or support of un-sustainable model of indus-trial expansion.- Public energy research.Private research on energyalternatives and usefavours "least cost" falsesolutions (eg. agrofuels,hydroelectric dams, nuclearpower) rather than environ-mentally effective alterna-tives, so is less effectivethan public research. How-ever, this would need to beallied with the democratictransformation of the insti-tutions of "environmentalgovernance," the agendafor which currently tends tobe set by transnational cor-porations.

- Re-estimating energydemand. Current modelspresume limitless growthand overstate future energydemand, which has encour-aged oversupply and keptprices low - which is, in turna key structural driver ofover-consumption.- The Transition Townsmovement is going someway towards re-estimatingdemand with its "EnergyDescent Action Plans", butlacks a structural analysis ofheavy industry use (or capi-talist accumulation) and isoften divorced fromorganising for more equi-table distribution of energy.- Changing economic cal-culations. Cost-benefit ac-counting either fails to takeaccount of environmental orsocial costs, or is grosslyreductionist in its assump-tions.- Challenging the"growth" fetish. GDP is avery poor indicator of hu-man-well being, so is not acondition for social im-provement or a good life.

Oscar Reyes Red Peppermagazine.http://www.stwr.org

If the obesession with economic growth is set aside, it becomes easier to see how tack-ling climate change and maintaining a sustainable and enjoyable life are far fromcontradictory goals.

17

As representatives of people's movements and independent organisations, we reject the claim that carbontrading will halt the climate crisis. This crisis has been caused more than anything else by the mining of fossilfuels and the release of their carbon to the oceans, air, soil and living things. This excessive burning of fossilfuels is now jeopardising Earth's ability to maintain a liveable climate.

Governments, export credit agencies, corporations and international financial institutions continue to sup-port and finance fossil fuel exploration, extraction and other activities that worsen global warming, such asforest degradation and destruction on a massive scale, while dedicating only token sums to renewable energy.It is particularly disturbing that the World Bank has recently defied the recommendation of its own ExtractiveIndustries Review which calls for the phasing out of World Bank financing for coal, oil and gas extraction.

We denounce the further delays in ending fossil fuel extraction that are being caused by corporate, govern-ment and United Nations' attempts to construct a "carbon market", including a market trading in "carbon sinks".

History has seen attempts to commodify land, food, labour, forests, water, genes and ideas. Carbon tradingfollows in the footsteps of this history and turns the earth's carbon-cycling capacity into property to be boughtor sold in a global market. Through this process of creating a new commodity - carbon - the Earth's ability andcapacity to support a climate conducive to life and human societies is now passing into the same corporatehands that are destroying the climate.

People around the world need to be made aware of this commodification and privatization and activelyintervene to ensure the protection of the Earth's climate.

Carbon trading will not contribute to achieving this protection of the Earth's climate. It is a false solutionwhich entrenches and magnifies social inequalities in many ways:

o The carbon market creates transferable rights to dump carbon in the air, oceans, soil and vegetation farin excess of the capacity of these systems to hold it. Billions of dollars worth of these rights are to be awardedfree of charge to the biggest corporate emitters of greenhouse gases in the electric power, iron and steel,cement, pulp and paper, and other sectors in industrialised nations who have caused the climate crisis andalready exploit these systems the most. Costs of future reductions in fossil fuel use are likely to fall dispropor-tionately on the public sector, communities, indigenous peoples and individual taxpayers.

o The Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), as well as many private sector tradingschemes, encourage industrialised countries and their corporations to finance or create cheap carbon dumpssuch as large-scale tree plantations in the South as a lucrative alternative to reducing emissions in the North.Other CDM projects, such as hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC) -reduction schemes, focus on end-of pipetechnologies and thus do nothing to reduce the impact of fossil fuel industries' impacts on local communities. Inaddition, these projects dwarf the tiny volume of renewable energy projects which constitute the CDM's sus-tainable development window-dressing.

o Impacts from fossil-fuel industries and other greenhouse-gas producing industries such as displacement,pollution, or climate change, are already disproportionately felt by small island states, coastal peoples, indig-enous peoples, local communities, fisherfolk, women, youth, poor people, elderly and marginalized communi-ties. CDM projects intensify these impacts in several ways. First, they sanction continued exploration for, andextraction, refining and burning of fossil fuels. Second, by providing finance for private sector projects such asindustrial tree plantations, they appropriate land, water and air already supporting the lives and livelihoods oflocal communities for new carbon dumps for Northern industries.

o The refusal to phase out the use of coal, oil and gas, which is further entrenched by carbon trading, is alsocausing more and more military conflicts around the world, magnifying social and environmental injustice. Thisin turn diverts vast resources to military budgets which could otherwise be utilized to support economies basedon renewable energies and energy efficiency.

In addition to these injustices, the internal weaknesses and contradictions of carbon trading are in fact likelyto make global warming worse rather than "mitigate" it. CDM projects, for instance, cannot be verified to be"neutralizing" any given quantity of fossil fuel extraction and burning. Their claim to be able to do so is increas-ingly dangerous because it creates the illusion that consumption and production patterns, particularly in theNorth, can be maintained without harming the climate.

In addition, because of the verification problem, as well as a lack of credible regulation, no one in the CDMmarket is likely to be sure what they are buying. Without a viable commodity to trade, the CDM market andsimilar private sector trading schemes are a total waste of time when the world has a critical climate crisis toaddress.

In an absurd contradiction the World Bank facilitates these false, market-based approaches to climatechange through its Prototype Carbon Fund, the BioCarbon Fund and the Community Development Carbon Fundat the same time it is promoting, on a far greater scale, the continued exploration for, and extraction andburning of fossil fuels - many of which are to ensure increased emissions of the North.

In conclusion, 'giving carbon a price' will not prove to be any more effective, democratic, or conducive tohuman welfare, than giving genes, forests, biodiversity or clean rivers a price.

We reaffirm that drastic reductions in emissions from fossil fuel use are a pre-requisite if we are to avert theclimate crisis. We affirm our responsibility to coming generations to seek real solutions that are viable and trulysustainable and that do not sacrifice marginalized communities.

We therefore commit ourselves to help build a global grassroots movement for climate justice, mobilizecommunities around the world and pledge our solidarity with people opposing carbon trading on the ground.

(Signed 10 October 2004 Glenmore Centre, Durban)

Climate Justice Now!The Durban Declaration on Carbon Trading

18

COPENHAGEN AND BEYOND Ladies and gentlemen, I have the answer! Incredible as it might seem, I have stumbled across the single technologywhich will save us from runaway climate change! From the goodness of my heart I offer it to you for free. No patents,no small print, no hidden clauses.

Already this technology, a radical new kind of carbon capture and storage, is causing a stir among scientists. Itis cheap, it is efficient and it can be deployed straight away. It is called . . . leaving fossil fuels in the ground.

George Monbiot

Enough science, now for the politicsBut although science isvery good at revealing howthings are, and suggestingwhat physical manifesta-tions might follow a particu-lar course of action, it haslimited relevance and reachwhen deciding what shouldbe done in the face of com-plex dilemmas - such as cli-mate change.

But exactly what actionis it that the science de-

mands? And action bywhom and by when? Theseare questions for politics todecide, not for science todictate.

The underlying reasonsfor human-induced climatechange open up questionsthat are even more intrac-table to science. The idea ofclimate change has re-ani-mated many long-standingdebates around power, jus-

tice and development in acolonising and colonisedworld.

Anil Agrawal and SunitaNarain captured this vividlyin their famous depiction ofluxury versus survival emis-sions: those associatedwith non-essential lifestylechoices like internationaltourism or garden hot tubsversus those from essentialsactivities such as cooking,

heating and light-ing. Ethically-charged discus-sions about indi-vidual, politicaland historical re-sponsibilities andabout the natureof human well-be-ing are now firmlyembedded in cli-mate change dis-course.

The ideaof climate changethat science hasso powerfully re-vealed is in turnunmasking themany reasons whywe so often dis-agree in ourcrowded, troubledand divided world.

It may in-deed be clear from

the science that 'urgent ac-tion' is needed. But doesthis mean radical changes inconsumption practices orradical decarbonisation ofenergy technologies? Andwho is to take this action:politicians, business lead-ers, entrepreneurs, the richof the West or the rich ofthe world? And by when aresuch actions demanded?Through the haze of emis-sion reductions goals for2050 or through more pro-saic and modest short-termgoals for the next fiveyears? These are the ques-tions in dispute. Simply 'let-ting the science speak' is farfrom enough.

As we enter anotherround of negotiations inCopenhagen it is vital thatwe understand the manyvalid reasons for disagree-ing about climate change.We must recognise that theyare rooted in different politi-cal, national, organisational,religious and intellectualcultures - in different waysof 'seeing the world'.

Climate change: Enoughscience, now for the politicsMike Hulme

Science and Develop-ment Network 3 September2009

Let us also be clear that internationalnegotiations on climate change stink.The mood is downright belligerent andselfish. The club of rich countries, thatonce agreed to 'common but differen-tiated responsibilities' (meaning coun-tries would act based on their respon-sibility in creating the problem), arelearning hard lessons. In the past 15years, their emissions have increased,not decreased. Now, they want to findany which way to please their greenconstituency, but also balance theireconomic growth imperatives and en-

sure their industry remains competi-tive.

Their strategy has many parts andplayers. First, the most climate-ren-egade nation, the US, is allowed topoint a finger at China, India and otheremerging countries. The US is con-stantly allowed to get away by sayingif these countries do not take action, itwill not. Even if this means ignoringthat US emissions, already one-fourthof the global total, have increased, andaccepting what the US says: that itsemissions will peak after 2025, or 10

The mean world of climate changeyears after what scientists say is theleast risky target for global emissionsto peak and then decline. Second, thisstrategy lets the guru of energy effi-ciency, Japan, provide an alternativeroad-map that is merely a win-win so-lution for its industry. Third, the green-czar, the European Union (EU) can usetough words, then cave in at strategicmoments, for the sake of pragmatismin global action's.

The stage is now set for the lastact of this deadly climate-play. DownTo Earth Magazine, 16 Jul 2008Sunita Narain

19

EuropeViews itself as the world leader and wants to limit climate change to 2C abovepre-industrial levels. Has pledged to cut carbon emissions by 20% by 2020, andto raise this to 30% if there is agreement at Copenhagen

USThe Bush administration regularly stalled on climate targets. Barack Obama'steam has yet to make its position clear, but has promised "vigorous engage-ment" at Copenhagen. Will want greater effort from developing countries, Chinain particular

ChinaMore aware of climate change than often given credit for. Likely to resist bind-ing targets, but some pledge of future action will be needed to appease US. Hasrequested that rich countries pay 0.7% of GDP to poorer ones to help themadapt to the effects of global warming.

IndiaHas taken a hard line so far and voiced its opposition to legally binding targets.Has indicated it would be willing to work to keep its growing per capita emis-sions below those of industrialised countries

RussiaOne of the great unknowns. Russia's crucial gas resources have made it morebullish at climate talks, and the Kremlin resents being ranked alongside coun-tries such as Argentina, Mexico and South Africa in the negotiations.- Energy Information Administration, The Guardian, 08 December 2008?

How the different countries standon climate change

India's PositionIn terms of India's position in thenegotiations, the country has con-sistently maintained that it needsthe "ecological space to grow," andthat it cannot afford to take onmandatory emission cuts at thisstage in its development. India'sstand is a valid and well-reasonedone, but as is often the case withdomestic policymaking in India weadopt the ostrich approach ofburying our head in the sand. It istime India looked up and seriouslyconfronted the dangers of climatechange at home, moving beyonddeal-making and bargaining. Indianeeds to begin exploring optionsfor renewable energy, energy ef-ficiency, and adaptation to climatechange and variability. Given thesub-continent's extreme vulner-ability to climate change, this is abattle that will ultimately be foughtin our own backyards. So we hadbetter gear up for it.Source: InfoChange News & Fea-tures, August 2005

The US and Climate Change In July 1997, The US Senatevoted 95-0 to sink any treatywhich failed to treat develop-ing countries in the same wayas it treated the rich ones.Though they knew this wasimpossible for developingcountries to accept, all theDemocrats lined up with allthe Republicans. The commonrefrain was"we will not sub-mit this agreement for ratifica-tion [in the Senate] until keydeveloping nations partici-pate".

So why, regardless of thecharacter of its leaders, doesthe US act this way? Because,like several other modern de-mocracies, it is subject to twogreat corrupting forces. First,the role of the corporate media- particularly in the US - indownplaying the threat of cli-mate change and demonisinganyone who tries to addressit.

Let us consider instead theother great source of corrup-tion: campaign finance. TheSenate rejects effective actionon climate change because itsmembers are bought and boundby the companies that standto lose. When you study the

tables showing who gives whatto whom, you are struck bytwo things.

One is the quantity. Since1990, the energy and naturalresources sector - mostly coal,oil, gas, logging and agribusiness- has given $418m to federalpoliticians in the US. Trans-port companies have given$355m. The other is the width:the undiscriminating nature of

this munificence. The big pol-luters favour the Republicans,but most of them also fundDemocrats.

During the 2000 presiden-tial campaign, oil and gas com-panies lavished money onBush, but they also gave Gore$142,000, while transportcompanies gave him $347,000.The whole US political systemis in hock to people who put

their profits ahead of the bio-sphere.

So don't believe all thisnonsense about waiting for thenext president to sort it out.Until the American people con-front their political fundingsystem, their politicians willkeep speaking from the pocket,not the gut.

- Counter Currents.Org, 18Dec 2007

20

Change in Position?In a confidential letter whichEnvironment Minister JairamRamesh has written to the PM,suggesting that India shouldopt out of the Kyoto Proto-col, jettison the 131 G77 de-veloping countries (andChina), and voluntarily acceptcuts in emissions without theslightest guarantee of any fund-ing or technology from indus-trial nations in return. Simplyand baldly stated, this goesagainst each and every prin-ciple which India -during the

epoch-making UN Earth Sum-mit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992and nearly two decades since -has in fact articulated on behalfof all developing countries.

There is only one moral tobe drawn from this sordiddrama.

A section of India's deci-sion-making elite - both in thepolitical-bureaucratic systemon the one hand and businessinterests on the other -- clearlybelieves that it is in India's in-terests now to align itself with

the US in its foreign policy.President Obama has made nosecret of the fact that climate isone of the cornerstones of USinternational policy. This is ofa piece with India signing thenuclear deal with the US, evenat the risk of destabilising itsown coalition, on the speciousplea that this would boostIndia's energy supply.

It is another matter that ifand when the entire Indo-USnuclear energy deal goesthrough, it will supply just 7%of the total energy, which is

hardly substantial, leaving asidethe serious objections tonuclear energy itself.

Who will take a bow whenthe curtain falls in Copenhagen?By all accounts, India andChina are waiting in the wings,to flank the US and EU whoare the main dramatis personae,with Japan and Australia inbetween.

India's climate volte face:Tragedy or farce?, DarrylD'Monte, Infochange, News &Features. October 2009

A Coalition of the Willing?As the clock ticks toCopenhagen, how low is theworld prepared to prostrate toget climate-renegade US onboard? Is a bad deal inCopenhagen better than nodeal?The global consensus isindustrialised countries need tocut at least 40 per cent over1990 levels, to avert a 2°C risein temperature. But the US,after much fanfare on its Nobel-awarded president, has pro-posed a puny target of 20 percent of 2005 levels by 2020.Now, this country's green-house gas emissions have in-creased by 20 per cent between1990 and 2005. Thus, it is say-ing it plans to do nothing butstabilise by 2020. It does noth-ing to cut its gargantuan emis-sion share-with some 5 per cent

of the world's population, itcurrently emits 18 per cent ofglobal emissions. This singlecountry is responsible for 30per cent of the global stock ofemissions in the atmosphere -this is criminal, when you thinkof the impact of climate changeon the poor of the world.Finally, it has made it amplyclear it will do this little bit onlyif China, India and other 'pol-luting' nations are with it in thisgrand cop-out plan.n other words, the world nowneeds a second coalition of thewilling - this time for PresidentBarack Obama. This time, notto go to war with Iraq, but toblow up the chance of an effec-tive agreement in Copenhagen.

The generals are putting to-gether the coalition, building

block by building block.But if we want to be part

of the coalition, we must agreeto their proposal. It is here wemust spot the similarities be-tween the 'leaked' letter of theminister of environment andforests to the prime minister,which asks for domestic legis-lation, international scrutiny onour mitigation actions, whichwe have to do for our own goodand support for the Australianproposal. If we accept thisproposition, we will be thedeal-makers. We will breakranks with the G-77/China blocand join the gang of the power-ful polluters.

Will this 'pragmatic' ap-proach to bring the world'smost renegade nation to thetable be effective for climate

change? Unequivocally, no. Itwill dismantle a multilateralagreement based on setting glo-bal targets to reduce emissions,equitable burden-sharing andstrong mechanisms for the mostpowerful to comply.

This coalition of the will-ing has many powerful takers.In the days to come, the cho-rus will grow. Watch and wait.Hear and listen. The world ismoving towards climate-disas-ter, and no Nobel Peace prizecan cover that up.Business Standard, Oct 28,2009

In all possibility, Copenhagen may well witness massmobilisations of CSO on lines of Seattle.“A network of radical green groups is planning todisrupt the international climate change meeting inCopenhagen in December by invading the conferencecentre and occupying it for a day, it has emerged.

The anti-globalisation group Climate Justice Actionhas said it hopes to mobilise up to 15,000 protestersto storm the climate summit and a large carbondioxide emitter nearby, while negotiators try tothrash out a replacement for the Kyoto protocol.

“We want to take over the summit space to set theglobal agenda away from false, market-basedsolutions, towards an agenda of social justice,” saidTadzio Müller, a 32-year-old German activist who ispart of the group organising the protest. “Realemission cuts will not be achieved by initiatives likecarbon trading...It is (the pursuit of) economicgrowth that is driving us into climate chaos.”

21

Toward a Movement for Climate JusticeAt various venues around theworld, activists have beenmeeting for over a year to plana concerted grassroots re-sponse to the upcoming UNclimate summit.

Anticipating that the forth-coming Copenhagen agreementis likely to fall far short of whatthe world needs to prevent un-precedented climate disrup-tions, their focus from the out-set was to highlight the limitsof business-as-usual and theneed for direct action againstthe root causes of climatechange, while demonstratingjust and sustainable alterna-tives. At a meeting of theemerging Climate Justice Ac-tion network, participantsfrom more than 20 countries,including several from the glo-bal South, agreed on an ambi-tious alternative agenda to thebusiness-dominated deal-mak-ing at the UN level.

"We cannot trust the mar-ket with our future, nor putour faith in unsafe, unprovenand unsustainable technolo-gies," the meeting's declarationreads. "Contrary to those whoput their faith in 'green capi-talism,' we know that it is im-possible to have infinitegrowth on a finite planet." Thestatement calls for leaving fos-sil fuels in the ground, popularand community control overproduction, reducing theNorth's overconsumption, re-specting indigenous and forestpeoples' rights and, notably,reparations for the ecologicaland climate debts owed by therichest countries to those whoare most affected by resourceextraction and climate-relateddisasters.

The emerging discourse ofclimate justice reflects a grow-ing understanding that thosemost affected by acceleratingclimate-related disastersaround the world are usuallythe least responsible for caus-ing disruptions in the climate.Thus any movement seekingan adequate response to globalclimate changes needs to clearlyface this discrepancy and pri-oritize the voices of the mostaffected communities. Manypeople around the world aresimultaneously impacted byclimate disruptions and by theemerging false solutions to cli-mate change, including carbontrading and offsets, the destruc-tion of forests to create biofuel(agrofuel) plantations, large-scale hydroelectric develop-

ments, and nuclear power. Cor-porate "solutions" to globalwarming often expandcommodification andprivatization, whether of land,waterways, or the atmosphereitself, largely at the expense ofthe same affected communities.This outlook was first widelyarticulated following a meetingin Durban, South Africa in thefall of 2004. Representativesfrom groups (including socialmovements and indigenouspeoples organizations) based inBrazil, India, Samoa, the US,and UK, as well as South Af-rica, drafted the Durban Dec-laration on Carbon Trading,which has since gained over300 signatories from aroundthe world. The Durban Grouphas helped bring people to thesites of various UN meetings

to represent those affected byincreased resource extractionover the past several decades,as well as the accelerating con-version of forests to monocul-ture plantations that is partlyjustified by the North's desirefor carbon offsets.

Internationally, peoplefrom Pacific Island nations, insome cases already losing landand groundwater to rising seas,have been in the forefront ofcalls for immediate action. Theworldwide confederation ofpeasant movements, VíaCampesina, with affiliatedgroups in more than 80 coun-tries, has joined the call for ac-tions in Copenhagen, challeng-ing the status of carbon as anewly privatized commodityand arguing that the UN cli-mate convention "has failed to

radically question the currentmodels of consumption andproduction based on the illu-sion of continuous growth."

The increasing urgency ofthe climate crisis has clearly hita nerve among people of manywalks of life, all around theworld. While the outcome ofCopenhagen remains highly un-certain, it is clear that such aflowering of creative and de-termined popular responses isprecisely what is needed to re-verse decades of willful inac-tion by the world's elites andreach beyond the limits of poli-tics-as-usual.Toward Climate Justice: Canwe turn back from the abyss?By Brian Tokar August 19,2009, For Z Magazine, Sep-tember 2009

No to neoliberal illusions,yes to people's solutions!

For centuries,productivism and indus-trial capitalism have beendestroying our cultures,exploiting our labour andpoisoning our environ-ment.

Now, with the climatecrisis, the Earth is saying"enough", "ya basta"!

Once again, the peoplewho created the problemare telling us that they alsohave the solutions: carbontrading, so-called "cleancoal", more nuclear power, agrofuels, even a "greennew deal". But these arenot real solutions, they areneoliberal illusions. It istime to move beyond theseillusions.

Real solutions to theclimate crisis are beingbuilt by those who havealways protected the Earthand by those who fightevery day to defend theirenvironment and livingconditions. We need toglobalise these solutions.

For us, the strugglesfor climate justice and so-cial justice are one and thesame. It is the struggle for

territories, land, forests andwater, for agrarian and urbanreform, food and energysovereignty, for women'sand worker's rights. It is thefight for equality and justicefor indigenous peoples, forpeoples of the global South,for the redistribution ofwealth and for the recogni-tion of the historical ecologi-cal debt owed by the North.

Against the disembod-ied, market-driven interestsof the global elite and thedominant developmentmodel based on never-end-ing growth and consump-tion, the climate justicemovement will reclaim thecommons, and put socialand economic realities at theheart of our struggle againstclimate change.

We call on everyone -workers, farmers, fisherfolk,students, youth, women,indigenous peoples, and allconcerned humans from theSouth and the North - to joinin this common struggle tobuild the real solutions tothe climate crisis for the fu-ture of our planet, our soci-eties, and our cultures. Alltogether, we are building amovement for climate jus-

tice.We support the mobi-

lizations against the G20summit and on the globalcrisis from 28 march to 4April, and the 17 April 2009mobilisation of La ViaCampesina.

We support the call foran International Day ofAction in Defense ofMother Earth and Indig-enous Rights on 12 Octo-ber 2009.

We call formobilisations and diverseforms of actions every-where, in the lead up to,during and beyond the UNclimate talks inCopenhagen, especiallyon the Global Day of Ac-tion on 12 December 2009.

In all of our work, wewill expose the false solu-tions, raise the voices ofthe South, defend humanrights, and strengthen oursolidarity in the fight forclimate justice. If we makethe right choices, we canbuild a better world foreveryone.

Climate justice Assem-bly Declaration, Bélém,Brazil, 1 February 2009

22

A way out ?It is rapidly becoming clear that thedominant paradigm of economicgrowth is one of the most significantobstacles to a serious global effort todeal with climate change.

The central problem, it is becom-ing increasingly clear, is a mode ofproduction whose main dynamic is thetransformation of living nature intodead commodities, creating tremen-dous waste in the process.

It has been the generalization ofthis mode of production in the Northand its spread from the North to theSouth over the last 300 years that hascaused the accelerated burning of fos-sil fuels like coal and oil and rapid de-forestation, two of the key man-made

processes behind global warming.Thus, for the South, the implica-

tions of an effective global responseto global warming include not just theinclusion of some countries in a re-gime of mandatory reductions in green-house gas emissions, although this iscritical: in the current round of climatenegotiations, for instance, China, canno longer opt out of a mandatory re-gime on the grounds that it is a devel-oping country.

Nor can the challenge to most ofthe other developing countries be lim-ited to that of getting the North totransfer technology to mitigate globalwarming and provide funds to assistthem in adapting to it, as many of themappeared to think during the Bali ne-gotiations.

These steps are important, but they

should be seen as but the initial stepsin a broader, global reorientation of theparadigm for achieving economic well-being

In this regard, climate change isboth a threat and an opportunity tobring about the long postponed so-cial and economic reforms that hadbeen derailed or sabotaged in previ-ous eras by the elite seeking to pre-serve or increase their privileges.

The difference is that today thevery existence of humanity and theplanet depend on the institutionaliza-tion of economic systems based noton feudal rent extraction or capital ac-cumulation or class exploitation, buton justice and equalityAnju Sharma, Centre for Science andEnvironment March 31st, 2000

An Alternative UnderstandingIt was not by chance that thesocio-economic and politicalcrisis of the post-war mode ofdevelopment went hand inhand with the politicisation ofthe environmental crisis Thecrisis became obvious in the1970s when public debate andsocial movements put theproblems of societal appro-priation of nature on the po-litical agenda.

At the beginning, the envi-ronmental crisis was dealt withsymbolically and by more orless technocratic state policies.After the mid- 1980s some 'so-lutions' became more and moreobvious. After the Rio Confer-ence on sustainable develop-ment in 1992, the road towardsinstitutional innovationsseemed to be opened and waysof dealing with the most fun-damental environmental prob-lems established: new interna-tional institutions like theFramework Convention onClimate Change, private com-panies which understood theprofound and innovativechanges that were necessary -certain sectors such as the au-tomobile and chemical indus-tries promoted their strategiesunder the label ofsustainability - and an increas-ing public awareness.

In the course of the 1990s,the Rio Conventions on Cli-mate Change and Biodiversitywere themselves articulatedthrough neoliberal politics -that is, they became one insti-tutional dimension of theneoliberalising of nature. Wecan also observe a strong insti-tutional selectivity towardsmarket-based instruments inthe very constitution of inter-

national climate andbiodiversity politics. But moregenerally, a neoliberalising ofnature took place: itsprivatisation, marketisation,de-regulation but also re-regu-lation (that is, state policiesin order to facilitateprivatisation andmarketisation), market proxiesin the residual public sector andrespective flanking mechanismsin civil society.

At the 'Rio +10' conferencein Johannesburg in 2002 it be-came clear that the strategiesof the corporations consistedmuch more of a 'greenwashing'than real changes and that thepublic awareness reachedamong the global elites andmiddle classes was only trans-lated into institutional changesas long as their own produc-tion and consumption normswere not questioned.

Policies were and are in theinterest of the owners of as-sets and of the global middleclasses including the middleclasses in economically emerg-ing countries such as China,India or Brazil. The Westernway of life still promotes itsattractiveness worldwide. Hu-man wellbeing and social secu-rity are still equated with eco-nomic growth and this meansthe resource-intensive growthof car production, of airports,of industrialised farming,projects of ocean fertilisation,and so on. It is therefore pos-sible to speak of an imperialway of living in Northern/Western countries and also inthe nations of the Global Southwith their growing middle class.That means that quite a largeportion of the world's popula-

tion lives by exploiting natureand exploiting other people(s);this is also one crucial elementthat despite the obvious crisisin the dominant relationshipswith nature remains largelyuncontested. Governments andbusiness intend to create in thissituation a win-winwin- winsituation through dominantpolitical and economic institutions: the proposed sustainablestrategies are considered to begood for business, good forconsumers, good for society asa whole and good for nature -and, therefore, justify state andintergovernmental policies.

In the context of the above,We need to ask whether thehighly politicised topic of theenvironmental crisis and espe-cially of climate change canopen up a way for more trans-formative thinking and action.Socio-ecological conflicts re-veal that much more is at stakethan symbolic policies to slowdown climate change throughglobal resource management:questions of democracy anddecision making, power oversocial knowledge remain. Thepolitical challenge is not just toof production, distribution andconsumption. The forms ofaccess to the material means ofsocial and individual reproduc-tion, and the power-mediatedframing of environmental prob-lems or 'the' ecological crisis,are both at stake.

It might be useful to de-velop radical demands and pro-posals through debates and theexchange of views and experi-ences. These should be articu-lated in relation to specificproblems and alter the ways inwhich they are interpreted, thus

offering possibilities for action.One major debate was initiatedby Walden Bello's quest for'deglobalisation' of the interna-tional political economy(2002): he argues, among otherthings, for a need to reject West-ern consumerism and a focuson resources from outside viaforeign direct investment andproposes the promotion of en-vironmentally sound and localtechnologies, distributional jus-tice, self-determination and animportant role for the demo-cratic state

Therefore, it is not enoughto bargain over emissions tar-gets; a broad and - since differ-ent interests prevail - conflic-tive learning process has to takeplace in order to promote al-ternative but attractive ways ofliving, producing and consum-ing, based on a relationship with'nature' that goes beyond oneof domination.

Emancipatory politicsseeks to strengthen alternativestrategies and forms of livingthrough cooperative learningprocesses and where necessarythrough conflict. But in contrastto the 1970s, in most countriesthere seem to be no relevantsocial forces that might be ca-pable of changing the overalldynamics and orientation to-wards the exploitation of na-ture. However, the terrain isfull of contingencies and thismight give critical thinking andemancipatory action a chance.Therefore, we need a reflectionof different strategies to main-tain and shape societal relation-ships with nature.

(Extracted from: Environ-mental crises and the ambigu-ous postneoliberalising of na-ture, Ulrich Brand, Develop-ment Ddialogue January 2009)

23

Towards a post Industrial Stone Age?With the use of fossil fuelssince 500 years, energy usehas increasing asymptoti-cally, and with it eMergy ap-propriation and accumula-tion. Our primary commer-cial energy use today is one-sixth of the energy pro-duced by photosynthesis,and has a 30-year doubling

time. Consequently, we arecurrently consuming 1.4times earth's bio-capacity,thus liquidating earth'snatural capital.

We face two tippingpoints today, each with thepotential to pose grave riskto human society as weknow it. The first is therapid exhaustion of our pri-mary energy sources-oiland gas, with no techno-economically viable alterna-tive source-nuclear, green,geotectonic-available as areplacement. A steep en-ergy price rise and a conse-quent deep global recession

are predicted to happen inthe near future.

The second is globalwarming, which is expectedto drastically impact the en-vironment, human healthand livelihoods within thiscentury

The classic response tothese issues has been to

suggest technical, legal andeconomic fixes-alternate en-ergy sources, Kyoto Proto-col, supply side manage-ment of energy. None ofthese will work as the glo-bal economy is based ongreed, and has permittedenergy accumulation on amassive scale in the handsof a few. Its consequences-peak oil and climate change-have interfered with the Car-bon cycle to such an extent,and in such a fundamentalway, that many believe thatwe have already crossed thepoint of no return, or have a

very narrow window of acouple of decades to rectifythe situation.

Development as under-stood-growth, equity andsocial justice-has failed.Economic growth will slowdown and even becomenegative with rapidly risingenergy prices and climate

change impacts setting in.Trickle-down theory hasfailed and inequity has onlygrown in the last 150 years.Mass poverty and massiveglobal inequities betweennations and economicclasses can no longer be re-duced by the "economicgrowth" mantra. With thefailure of equity, social jus-tice cannot happen. By go-ing against the laws of na-ture, capitalism has becomeself-limiting. Sustainabledevelopment has become anoxymoron. Developmentmust therefore be re-definedas:

Carbon FootprintA carbon footprint is "the total set of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissionscaused directly and indirectly by an individual, organization, event orproduct"The smaller the carbon footprint, the more environment-friendly is theorganisation. Once we have accurately determined the current carbonfootprint, we will need to identify the hotspots of energy consumption,optimise energy efficiency, and identify solutions to neutralise the CO2emissions that cannot be reduced by any energy saving measures.

That being said, relying entirely on one indicator can sometimes bemisleading. One example could be biofuels, for which a low carbonfootprint could give the impression of a truly eco-friendly product, despiteits negative land use impacts, ultimately increasing the pressure onrainforests and other rich habitats.- Carbon footprint, The Hindu, Chennai, 09 Nov 2008

* Powering down en-ergy and natural resourcethroughputs in society. Aslong as energy throughputsremain at current levels,conservation of natural re-sources is impossible.* Conservation of naturalcapital is vital for the sur-vival of human society andcan only be done along withaddressing issues related toequity, and vice versa.* Ensuring that all peoplehave equal: i) access to en-ergy and other natural re-sources, ii) consumptionlevels of energy and othernatural resources, iii) partici-pation levels in decisionmaking over all issues re-lated to energy and naturalresources, in such a mannerthat the eco-footprint forearth as a whole, and its vari-ous geographic regions, donot exceed their bio-capaci-ties.This perforce people recov-ering their control over theirstolen environments. GDP/GNP can no longer be usedas a development milestoneand a suitable developmentmilestone will have to befashioned out and accepted.

The above can only beachieved if global thinkingshifts from "gain maximiza-tion for a few people" to "riskminimization for all of life".Implicit within the latter isthe acceptance of three eq-uities: a) between people, b)between generations, c) be-tween species. If equitybetween species is ac-cepted, it challenges thevery definition of "economicvalue" as we understand ittoday. The currently an-thropocentric political andsociological structuresmust also become bio-cen-tric.

The roadmap to do allthis is yet uncharted. Thereisn't adequate public will ortime left to make the shiftbefore catastrophic eventspredicted to happen withpeak oil and climate changetear apart the fabric of soci-ety as we know it. Some arealready talking of survivalstrategies in a post-indus-trial stone age.

Sagar Dhara. CerenaFoundationsagdhara@yahoo.comi

24

The Meaning of Resistance in PeruWhile climate jargon-fuelled meetings happen at the global level, examples of local resistance can remind uswhat dealing with climate change is really about. The indigenous peoples' struggle in Peru against the colonisationof their lands by polluting industries is one such example.

For over two months, Peru's indigenous peoples have been holding an indefinite strike demanding theabolition of legislative decrees that threatened to undermine their land and water rights. The Peruvian governmentintroduced these laws in line with the free trade agreement it had signed with the United States. It was donewithout prior consultation with the indigenous communities, as required by the 169 International LabourOrganisation Convention, to which Peru is a signatory. The new laws mean opening more rainforest to privatecorporations, a move which the government has said was in the 'national interest'. Such labelling was anexcuse for its violent military reaction against the indigenous protestors in the past weeks. The government,however, did not count on the strength of the resistance of the indigenous peoples.

When people think of the Amazon, they think of Brazil, but more than half of Peru's territory is covered by theAmazon rainforest --home to 65 ethnic groups, 14 linguistic families and diverse ways of living. The Amazonboasts the greatest biological diversity in the world. It generates an estimated 20 per cent of the world's freshwater. It is crucial for maintaining the climate as it regulates atmospheric gases and stabilises rainfall, itprotects against desertification and serves numerous other ecological functions.

And yet, in the last four years, the area designated for oil and gas concessions has increased from about 15percent to 70 per cent . In April 2009, PeruPetro, the country's national oil-licensing agency, signed contracts withinternational oil companies for 15 Amazonian 'blocks' of land.

Peru is just one of many countries now in conflict with its indigenous people over natural resources. Differentparts of Africa, Latin America, Asia and North America are also experiencing intensified conflicts over land rightsand access to natural resources - which may mark the Rubincon for a model of unsustainable extractivecapitalism for the benefit of few.

Ironically, the global climate negotiations are threatening the indigenous peoples' way of life, by seeking toexpand the carbon market and to make the rainforest part of this market-based scheme. The fact that manyindigenous peoples have no titles to the land they have lived on for centuries, makes them an easy target andvulnerable to displacement. This not only threatens their rights and the Amazon itself, but also means that thelast vestiges of an ancient way of living in harmony with nature is being destroyed.

It is worth defending not least for helping the world understand what is involved in moving to a non-carboneconomy.

- A fight to save the Amazon rainforest, Joanna Cabello, TNI, 19 June 2009

CConcernsritical

3 Suleman Chambers4 Battery Street,

Mumbai - 400 001Ph : 2202 0019

email : cedbom@doccentre.net

Plot 7, 8th MainDomlur 2nd Stage

IIIrd Phase, Bangalore-560071Tel.: 2535 3397

email : cedban@doccentre.net