Category Archives: UNFCCC

by | 2011-06-15 · 14:30

Civil Society Organizations to IPCC: Take Geoengineering off the Table!

Today, 125 international and national organizations, representing at least 40 countries from all continents, sent an open letter to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), demanding a clear statement of its commitment to precaution and to the existing international moratorium on geoengineering. The IPCC will hold an expert meeting on geoengineering 20-22 June in Lima, Peru. (The letter is available and open for signatures here.)
–
Geoengineering is the deliberate manipulation of Earth systems to alter the climate, including high-risk technologies such as blasting particles into the stratosphere to mimic volcanic eruptions (to block sunlight) and “fertilizing” oceans to grow plankton blooms for carbon sequestration. Formerly in the realm of science fiction, geoengineering has been gaining ground as a possible – even necessary, some argue – response to the climate crisis.
–
Climate manipulation has been on the radar of powerful Northern governments for decades. Originally conceived as a military strategy, climate manipulation has been rebranded as geoengineering: a weapon in the war on climate change.
–
The U.S. and UK governments appear especially open to the prospect of geoengineering, which is no surprise, according to Silvia Ribeiro of the ETC Group: “It’s a convenient way for Northern governments to dodge their commitments to emissions reduction.” Ribeiro continues, “But the climate is a complex system; manipulating climate in one place could have grave environmental, social and economic impacts on countries and peoples that had no say on the issue. Scientists estimate that blasting particles into the stratosphere could alter monsoon and wind patterns and put at risk the food and water sources for 2 billion people.”
–
“As the world watched the Australian airline industry thrown into chaos this week by volcanic ash drifting from Chile, it’s absurd that the IPCC is considering how to do the same thing on purpose. The potential for unilateralism and private profiteering is great; the likelihood that geoengineering will provide a safe, lasting, democratic and peaceful solution to the climate crisis is miniscule,” said Ricardo Navarro, of Cesta and Friends of the Earth International, detained in Buenos Aires due to the volcanic ash.
–
In October 2010, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity established a moratorium on geoengineering. Nonetheless, Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC told The Guardian last week, “We are putting ourselves in a scenario where we will have to develop more powerful technologies to capture emissions out of the atmosphere,” referring to geoengineering techniques.
–
Meenakshi Raman from Third World Network – Malaysia, another signatory of the letter to the IPCC, argues, “It is completely misguided for Ms. Figueres to suggest that we work on sucking carbon out of the atmosphere rather than stop putting it in; it is equally misguided for the IPCC to assume that geoengineering has any place at all in what they call the ‘portfolio of response options’ to climate change.”
–
The open letter criticizes the IPCC for reneging on its pledge to be “policy-neutral.” The Scientific Steering Committee (SSG) that organized the expert meeting includes geoengineering researchers who have advocated increases in research funding and real-world experimentation, as well as scientists with patents pending on geoengineering technologies and/or other financial interests. The SSG did not allow committed civil society organizations to participate, even as observers. Still, the IPCC says it will take up the issue of  “governance” and “social, legal and political factors.”
–
Raman stresses that the IPCC has no place taking up the issue of geoengineering governance because “this is not a scientific question; it’s a political one.”
–
La Via Campesina, the world’s largest small-scale farmers network, is concerned that the impacts of climate manipulation on agriculture would be felt particularly by peasants in the South and that tinkering with the oceans could destroy the livelihoods of thousands of small fishermen. Via Campesina argues, “Geoengineering is a false solution to climate change and so dangerous to nature and to the world’s people, it should be banned.”
–
Alejandro Argumedo from the indigenous organization ANDES (Peru) agrees. Argumedo is one of the organizers of activities for civil society organizations, which will take place in Lima at the same time as the IPCC’s expert meeting: “The IPCC shut out civil society from their meeting, even though the Panel’s experts plan to discuss the ‘social factors’ of geoengineering. 125 international and national organizations from around the world just gave them something to talk about.”
–
For further information:
Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group, silvia@etcgroup.org; Mexico, +52 55 5563 2664
Cellphone: +52 1 55 2653 3330
Pat Mooney, ETC Group, etc@etcgroup.org; Canada, +1 613 241 2267
cellphone +1 613 240 0045
Ricardo Navarro, Cesta – Friends of the Earth, El Salvador cesta@cesta-foe.org.sv
Contacts in Bonn (attending climate negotiations)
Diana Bronson, ETC group, diana@etcgroup.org;
cellphone: +1-514-629-9236
Meenakshi Raman, Third World Network, meenaco@pd.jaring.my;
cellphone +49 15222393647
Contacts in Lima during IPCC workshop, June 19-22:
Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group, silvia@etcgroup.org
local cellphone: +51 984 400 073
Alejandro Argumedo, Asociación Andes, alejandro@andes.org.pe, tel 51-84-245021,
cellphone +51- 984706610
Hands Off Mother Earth / HOME campaign in opposition to geoengineering www.handsoffmotherearth.org
ETC Group, Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5217

Comments Off on Civil Society Organizations to IPCC: Take Geoengineering off the Table!

Filed under Geoengineering, UNFCCC

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 2011-06-13 · 14:30

Bolivian indigenous social movements worried about future of Kyoto Protocol and reject commodification of forests.

Press Conference: http://unfccc2.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/110606_SB34/templ/play.php?id_kongresssession=3597&theme=unfccc

After one week of UN climate change negotiations in Bonn it is still unclear whether countries will adopt a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol – the only legally binding treaty which obliges developed countries to reduce their emissions of green house gases.

“These reduction targets must be binding for all Annex 1 countries. They must be ambitious to guarantee a level of reduction in line with what is demanded by science. Current emissions targets will lead to an increase of four degrees centigrade in temperature by the end of this century”, said social movement leader Lauriano Pari.

With 2010 one of the hottest years on record, Bolivia’s indigenous peoples demand urgency on a comprehensive global deal to prevent irreversible climate change. Time is running out as the first commitment period of Kyoto Protocol finishes at the end of 2012.

Indigenous leader Rafael Quispe said: “Our glaciers are melting, causing desertification of our lands. Now our communities are forced to migrate to the cities. It is not possible that forests, that are our home and that we have been the guardians of for many centuries, are converted into simple carbon sinks and providers of environmental services. They should have a broader vision viewing them as areas of biodiversity and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples”.

“There must be a holistic vision of forests. Forests will not be protected through a mechanism that issues certificates for the reduction of emissions to be sold on a carbon market.  With these certificates for the reduction of emissions in our forests developed countries and companies will not fulfill their emissions reductions obligations”, added Lauriano Pari.

“There must be financial reward for countries and indigenous peoples who preserve their forests. This financial reward cannot be based on market mechanisms. Instead funds should come from developed countries and innovative funding sources should be explored. For example, by establishing a new mechanism for a tax on financial transactions that would generate funds without any conditionality”

Lauriano Pari finished by saying, “We believe that in the build up to the Conference of the Parties COP17 instead of promoting the commodification of nature through the REDD mechanism we should follow a path where we recognize the rights of Mother Earth”.

Notes to editors

A webcast of the full press conference at Bonn UN climate change talks is available here

The indigenous leaders who spoke in the press conference were Tata Rafael Quispe, Mallku of CONAMAQ and Lauriano Pari, Secretary of Natural Resources of the CSUTCB.

The Pacto de Unidad is a coalition of Bolivia’s five main social movements representing millions of people – the Committee of the Confederation of Bolivian Peasant Workers (CSUTCB), the National Confederation of Native Indigenous Peasant Women (CNMCIOB-BS), the National Council of Ayllus and Markas of Qullasuyu (CONAMAQ), the Confederation of Intercultural Communities of Bolivia (CSCIB) and the Confederation of Bolivian Indigenous Peoples (CIDOB).

Comments Off on Bolivian indigenous social movements worried about future of Kyoto Protocol and reject commodification of forests.

Filed under Carbon Trading, Climate Change, False Solutions to Climate Change, Indigenous Peoples, Latin America-Caribbean, REDD, UNFCCC

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 2011-06-11 · 11:05

Report Reveals World Bank’s Role in Fuelling Climate Chaos

BONN [GERMANY], June 11, 2011 – A new report released today by Friends of
the Earth International during the UN climate talks in Bonn this week
shows that the World Bank Group has been increasing its investments in
fossil fuels and promoting corporate-led false solutions to climate
change, including carbon trading, that serve to deepen rather than
alleviate the current environmental crisis.

The report, ‘Catalysing Catastrophic Climate Change’, follows widespread
concerns voiced by developing countries about the growing role of the
World Bank in delivering climate finance.

The report shows how the Bank’s dirty fossil fuel financing is on the
rise, locking countries such as India and South Africa into an even
greater reliance on coal. Furthermore, the Bank is driving the expansion
of carbon markets, an escape hatch for rich industrialised countries from
cutting their emissions, whilst causing ecological damage and the
displacement of communities in the global South. And despite negative
environmental, social, and climate change impacts, the World Bank is
significantly scaling up support for large hydropower.

Despite the Bank’s lending for highly unsustainable projects around the
world, it is seeking an influential role in the UN’s new Green Climate
Fund and in mechanisms to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation (REDD).

Friends of the Earth International Economic Justice Program Coordinator
Sebastian Valdomir said:

“The World Bank is part of the climate problem, not the climate solution.
Its conflicts of interest, and appalling social and environmental track
record, should immediately disqualify it from playing any role whatsoever
in designing the Green Climate Fund, and in climate finance more
generally.”

The World Bank has been accused of having a conflict of interest with
regards to serving as both the interim trustee of the Green Climate Fund
(fiduciary function) and on the Technical Support Unit designing the fund
(consultancy function). In effect, the Bank would be designing a fund that
is meant to oversee its own activities.

The World Bank’s fossil fuel lending practices and propagation of false
solutions to climate change, such as carbon trading and large dams, should
lead to its exclusion from any role in designing the UNFCCC’s Green
Climate Fund.

Friends of the Earth International calls for climate finance that is
derived from assessed budgetary contributions and other non-market-based
innovative sources – like financial transaction taxes – that is
commensurate with rich countries’ disproportionate role in creating the
problem of climate change.

Policy Analyst at Friends of the Earth United States Kate Horner said:

“The World Bank claims to provide leadership on climate change but, as
shown in this report, it is a major funder of dirty fossil fuel projects,
carbon trading and mega dams. These initiatives deepen poverty and push us
closer to the brink of a global environmental disaster.”

NOTES:
[1] The report shows that in 2010 the Bank hit a new record in terms of
its fossil fuel funding, totaling US$6.6 billion, a 116% increase over
2009. US$4.4 billion of this total was invested in coal, also a record
high, and a 356% increase over the previous year.

[2] The World Bank’s private lending arm, the IFC, approved investment of
US$450 million for the Tata Mundra 4,000-megawatt coal-fired power plant
in Gujarat, India, which is expected to emit an estimated 25.7 million
tons of CO2 annually for at least 25 years.

In April 2010, the World Bank also approved a massive US$3.75 billion
loan, the overwhelming majority of which will finance the 4,800 megawatt
Medupi coal-fired power plant being built by Eskom, South Africa’s
state-owned power utility. The loan will lead to 40 new coalmines opening
up to feed the Medupi plant and related projects. South Africa is
currently responsible for 40% of all of Africa’s greenhouse gas emissions,
and this loan will add to these emissions.

[3] The World Bank has been increasing investment in large hydropower
since 2003, following a lull in such investment in the 1990s, despite that
dams have already displaced 40–80 million people.

[4] The World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) include a Pilot
Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR), which allows for loans for
adaptation, unlike UNFCCC funds and the Adaptation Fund, which has
recently led to protests in Nepal and Bangladesh.

[5] The English version of the report can be found at:
http://www.foei.org/en/resources/publications/pdfs/2011/world-bank-catalysing-catastrophic-climate-change/
The Spanish version of the report can be found at:
http://www.foei.org/es/recursos/publicaciones/pdfs-por-ano/2011/banco-mundial-catalizador-del-cambio-clima301tico-devastador/

[6] Key findings from the report will be presented at a side event at the
UNFCCC climate talks in Bonn, Germany on Saturday 11 June: 18:15—19:45,
WIND, Ministry of the Environment building.

Comments Off on Report Reveals World Bank’s Role in Fuelling Climate Chaos

Filed under Climate Change, Corporate Globalization, Energy, UNFCCC

Tagged as , , ,

by | 2011-06-09 · 12:05

REDD and Bioenergy: Impressions from the Bonn Climate Talks

Note: Global Justice Ecology Project is the North American Focal Point for Global Forest Coalition and teams with GFC on programs on GE trees and wood-based bioenergy, and to protect forests and defend the rights of Indigenous and forest dependent communities.
Photo: GFC meeting in Namanga, Kenya, 2006 by Petermann/GJEP-GFC
–
by Simone Lovera, Executive Director, Global Forest Coalition
–
A quick first impression from the ongoing climate talks in Bonn as far as bioenergy is concerned: It is too early to say a lot about REDD as they have not started discussing it yet. The Ad Hoc Working Group on LCA will have its first REDD-discussions tomorrow (probably these will be open to observers), and the SBSTA only adopted its agenda this morning, which is typifying for the atmosphere of mistrust and confrontation here in Bonn.
–
In general, talks are going very slow and are unlikely to lead to any concrete outcomes on anything. As it seems like there will not be any other negotiation rounds before the next conference of the parties in Durban in December (at least, this is what is being said now, it could change), hopes for any agreement on anything are very minimal. In this light it is important to note that the suggestion that REDD+ could be financed through mandatory carbon markets seems more and more a fairy tale as skepticism about existing (CDM) and new carbon markets seems to be growing, especially in the absence of clarity on the future of the Kyoto Protocol or any other binding emission reduction targets. Many countries rightfully reject trade without caps. And a growing number of countries is particularly hesitant about financing REDD+ through markets. But this debate is flowing.
–
Meanwhile, there have been some fascinating side events related to bioenergy.
–
Most remarkable was the presentation of the full report on renewable energies of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Well, “presentation”; the actual report is not published yet as it seems the discussions between the different scientists were a bit overheated and they could not easily reach consensus, so the publication of the full report was delayed until the 14th and perhaps later. At a presentation during the climate talks on June 7 it became clear why: There was no consensus about the impact of bioenergy on sustainable development, food security and land use change.
–
The summary for policy makers that was launched a month ago stated quite bluntly that ” most” biofuel has a positive impact on climate change mitigation, and hardly mentioned impacts on food security or land use. This was considered to be very disappointing in the eyes of many bioenergy campaigners. Meanwhile the IPCC presentation of the full report included a clear admittance that bioenergy has a range of direct and indirect land use change impacts that might nullify any positive impacts bioenergy has on climate change mitigation.
–
The presentations on basis of the full report mentioned clearly that there were a lot of direct and indirect land-use issues to be addressed, that biomass smoke caused more deaths than malaria or tuberculosis, and that there were serious concerns about potential impacts on food security. On the latter, they openly admitted the different authors had a big dispute over this, but that they sort of agreed that impacts on food security depended on the level of optimism about potential intensification of agricultural production. And even this “consensus” was disputed, one day later, by Frances Seymour, exective director of the Centre for International Forestry Research, who stated during another side event that governance and land use planning have a more important role to play, and that agricultural intensification might also have negative impacts on land use.
–
When asked why the summary report for policy makers was so much more positive on bioenergy than the full report, and whether this was not a form of misrepresentation, the rather eye-opening response was that the summary for policy makers is ” a negotiated document” (sic).
More critique on bioenergy was exposed at another CIFOR-sponsored side event on Wedneday night, where the Joanneum Institute presented research on the carbon debt of bioenergy and how many years one has to produce bioenergy on the same piece of land to compensate for the carbon emissions caused by converting natural vegetation in feedstock plantations. Figures were astonishing: from some 20 – 30 years for soy to up to 74 years for Jatropha, which scored almost as bad as oilpalm on peatland! Needless to say “permanence” is a major issue in this scenario, it is quite unrealistic to assume farmers will commit themselves to producing the same feedstock for up to 74 years.
–
Regretfully, the report itself is not yet online, but The upfront carbon debt of bioenergy which was published last year includes quite some useful information on this.
–
More later, as the talks continue (and/or continue to be stalled…..)
–
Simone

Comments Off on REDD and Bioenergy: Impressions from the Bonn Climate Talks

Filed under Bioenergy / Agrofuels, Climate Change, REDD, UNFCCC

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | 2011-06-08 · 15:30

ETC Group on Geoengineering Developments and How to Take Action

There are three important new developments on geoengineering (large-scale intentional manipulation of the Earth systems in an attempt to affect the climate) that we we like to bring to your attention.  What has long been lurking in the shadows of climate negotiations as a wealthy country Plan B has all of a sudden come front and center.  We urge you to pay attention to these developments and intervene where you can.
–
1.  Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC gave an interview to The Guardian in the UK on the weekend, stating that “We are putting ourselves in a scenario where we will have to develop more powerful technologies to capture emissions out of the atmosphere”.   Capturing carbon from the atmosphere is geoengineering.  This takes place at a time when Canada and New Zealand are seeking to start a work programme for agriculture in the UNFCCC, looking at modalities for enhancing the amount of carbon that can be stored in soil through techniques like biochar.
–
Technologies which capture CO2 from the atmosphere through chemical processes (known as direct air capture) are untested and unproven and recently received a particularly negative assessment from the American Physical Society.   The APS found that the prototype direct air capture technology they assessed was not even economically viable before considering the enormous unresolved issues related to the eventual sequestration of carbon in deep geological formations. .  Other geoengineering methods for CO2 removal include ocean fertilization and liming the oceans, both with potentially devastating consequences on marine ecosystems.   See for example this review on ocean fertilization (which has been under a moratorium since 2008 but which is rearing its head again as a group of universities are intent are re-starting experimentation.
–
2. The three IPCC working groups will be holding a joint meeting on geoengineering in Lima, 20-22 June in preparation for the Fifth Assessment report.  The terms of reference for the meeting are here.   The organizing committee of the meeting includes prominent proponents of geoengineering such as American scientist Ken Caldeira, and Canadians David Keith (University of Calgary) and Jason Blackstock (CIGI) and the topics up for discussion include governance and social, economic and legal aspects of the question.   Keith and Caldeira were instrumental in the Royal Society report on goengineering and both testified before Congress and the UK House of Commons in favour of more research.  They both have patents pending, as you can see from the ETC Group report Geopiracy and are involved in a wide variety of initiatives on geoengineering.
–
They co-manage Bill Gate’s private geoengineering fund of $4.6 million.   Jason Blackstock was recently described in the Canadian Walrus Magazine as “a young scholar with an almost luminous sense of self-confidence”.  He was the main author of the peculiar Novim report on stratospheric aerosols and has been involved in getting prestigous mainstream foreign policy outfits involved in geoengineering in the UK, Canada and US .   Blackstock is also slated to speak on a panel about geoengineering organized by the Canadian embassy (!) in Sao Paulo Brazil, 16 June 2011.
–
3.  The Convention on Biological Diversity is also busy reviewing papers and convening meetings ito follow up on the de facto moratorium on geoengineering activities adopted at COP 10 in Nagoya, Japan in October 2010.  The first consultative meeting on geoengineering organized by the CBD will take place June 10 in Bonn, on the margins of the climate negotiations.   This mini-workshop will examine the question of how to define geoengineering, its impacts on biodiversity and questions about its governance — an ambitious agenda.  To its credit, the CBD meeting is not invitation only (like so many others: the SRMGI consultation recently held in the UK, the International Risk Governance Council, the Asilomar Conference on Climate Intervention ) and civil society organizations and governments are equally able to attend.
–
Furthermore, the CBD is mandated not to do a simple technical review of the proposals but to examine their risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts.   The CBD has also created a “liaison group” to oversee its work on geoengineering that will hopefully provide some balance to the discussions thus far that have been dominated by a small group of scientific experts engaged in research, with notoriously low participation from developing countries, social scientists, women, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, as well as other critical voices from civil society.
–
On the one hand, it is a positive development that different UN bodies are beginning to discuss geoengineering because any modification of our oceans  and atmosphere will ultimately affect all countries. All countries must therefore be involved in discussions about it.   However, there will also be tremendous pressure exerted by powerful countries who are counting on using this Plan B to move forward with research, public funding programmes and real-world experimentation with inevitable transboundary impacts. The global South and civil society must be clear that geoengineering is not an alternative to the existing and agreed upon priorities of mitigation and adaptation, according to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Any new multilateral governance arrangement must strengthen the existing moratorium, not weaken it.  That means a strict prohibition of all unilateral experimentation of geoengineering technologies  —  at least until there is a multilateral consensus that this avenue could or should be explored.  So far, international consensus says we do not want to go down this road.  Let’s keep it that way. 
–
If you have not yet done so, you can join the international campaign against geoengineering experiments atwww.handsoffmotherearth.org. 

A joint civil society letter is in the works regarding the IPCC meeting. If you are interested to see the letter and sign on behalf of your organization, please contact Veronica Villa: veronica@etcgroup.org. 

From: Diana Bronson, ETC Group

Comments Off on ETC Group on Geoengineering Developments and How to Take Action

Filed under Climate Change, Climate Justice, Corporate Globalization, False Solutions to Climate Change, UNFCCC

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 2011-06-07 · 14:00

Statement on Need to Protect Forests from Plurinational State of Bolivia

Note: GJEP agrees that protecting forests–and we mean REALLY protecting biodiverse, culturally important, native forests–is critical to solving the problem of climate change, and that industrialized countries must make a clear, legally-binding commitment to substantially reduce their carbon emissions immediately.  However, the Kyoto Protocol never did this.  It was a legally binding agreement ignored by the US (the largest emitter in the world) that did not go nearly far enough in its call for carbon reductions.  It’s goal of 5.2% reductions below 1990 levels was completely inadequate to address the problem.  And as we have seen since Kyoto went into effect in 2005, emissions have continued to rise.  Could the new round of Kyoto mandate legally binding and effective emissions reductions?  What is absolutely clear is that any non-binding or voluntary agreement (as is being pushed by the US and other Industrialized countries) will not even be worth the paper on which it is written.  And if it is binding, how can the government of the US be trusted?  We all know what a screwed-up track record they have (and not just on the climate issue).  It is for this reason that GJEP works with social movements, organizations, communities and Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations around the world to identify and promote those thousands of locally-controlled, small-scale solutions to climate change that already exist.

–The GJEP Team

CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS NEED:

KYOTO, A FOCUS ON PROTECTING FORESTS NOW
BONN- Today, as UN climate negotiations continued their slow start, Ambassador Pablo Solon of the Plurinational State of Bolivia outlined a clear vision to move negotiations forward.Ambassador Solon in a press conference addressed :

  • Possible outcomes from the annual climate conference, to be held in Durban, South Africa in December;
  • the importance of forest protection to negotiations;
  • the need to recognize the rights of Mother Earth; and
  • proposed an international financial transaction tax.

Durban Outcomes

“In Durban we cannot repeat the mistakes of Cancun. In Durban we need a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, that is the only possible concrete outcome. There is no time for a new legally binding treaty. The choice is binding targets in the Kyoto Protocol or a non-binding decision that does not resolve the issue of reducing emissions in developed countries.” Ambassador Solon said.

“We cannot come out of South Africa with the targets we have now, the UNEP has shown they will lead us to 4C of global warming. We must have targets that limit temperature rise to between 1C and 1.5C to preserve life as we know it.” Ambassador Solon said.

Forests at Bonn Negotiations

 “We also need a clear position in relation to the issue of forests. Forests are integral to the lives of millions and an essential part of the world’s natural system. We cannot spend the money that we have now, a very small amount of money, trying to measure the amount of carbon that forests store in order to prepare the conditions for a future carbon market in the forest.” Ambassador Solon said.

“What we need to do is direct that small amount of resources that we have to preserve forests now. The key issue is to develop and implement key actions now, and not in 8 years when there might be a carbon market, but right now in order to preserve the forests today so that they can continue living and giving life.” Ambassador Solon said.

Rights of Mother Earth

“When we consider climate change we are not just talking about floods, rains, and droughts but more holistically but the Earth’s systems as a whole. It’s not just about the number of emissions but how we are affecting the whole system – of individuals eco-systems and the system of planet Earth.” Ambassador Solon said.

“We must recognize that we are a part of a system and we cannot commodity and transform this system without consequences. All countries, in all their policies, must respect the natural boundaries of the Earth’s systems. The rights of the other parts of this system must be considered and we need to develop international rules and laws to preserve the integrity of the Earth’s system. Bolivia has made submissions to develop these rules at the climate negotiations.” Ambassador Solon said.

 International Financial Transaction Tax

 “Developing countries are very disappointed and concerned about the status of the proposed fast start climate finance ($30B) from Copenhagen. There hasn’t been an official review and it needs a concrete and official report.” Ambassador Solon said.

“Civil society analysis shows that most ‘fast start finance’ is not new. It’s just recycling of official aid that was already agreed for projects that were already being financed. Before they were under agriculture or infrastructure but now they are called climate finance. But real, actually new funds, the famous $30B promised in Copenhagen, has not come to developing countries.” Ambassador Solon said.

“Instead of waiting for this promise of fast start finance to materialize we have put forward a proposal for a tax on International Financial Transactions. This would be a mechanism that can generate real funds and we will have the funds to act immediately to address the protection of forests and fight climate change.” Ambassador Solon said.

“The tax would be voluntary, each country could decide to be involved, but the revenue raised would go into a common fund to fight climate change. It could be scaled up quickly and is a decisive response – experience shows we cannot rely on private finance to generate nearly enough to take effective action.” Ambassador Solon said.

Press Conference Tomorrow, June 8 by the Plurinational State of Bolivia:

Forests, Rights of Nature and Current Situation of the Climate Change Negotiations

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn Germany

Place: Room Haydn, Hotel Maritim, Bonn, Germany

Date and Time: Wednesday, June 8, 11am

Comments Off on Statement on Need to Protect Forests from Plurinational State of Bolivia

Filed under Climate Change, Climate Justice, False Solutions to Climate Change, UNFCCC

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 2011-05-11 · 15:52

IPCC: Let’s Destroy our Forests to Save the Planet!

Yes, more oxymoronic logic from UN.  Let’s massively increase the demand for trees at the same time that we promote a major program to supposedly “Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation.”  Don’t try to figure it out logically, you will only wind up hurting your head…

–The GJEP Team

Why Does the IPCC Want Us to Cut Down Trees?

Posted by BRYAN WALSH Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 3:20 pm

Yesterday the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) came out with an early summary of a new report projecting the future of renewable energy. As with many international studies of the sort, readers were free to use parts of the results towards whichever conclusion they’d already reached on alternative power and climate change. Optimistic greens could be cheered by the IPCC’s promise that renewable sources could provide 77% of the world’s energy by 2050, up from 13% in 2008, as long as governments adopted the right bundle of policies. Skeptics could point to the enormous price tag of those policies—the IPCC estimates that such a shift could cost up to $15 trillion over the next couple of decades, more than the entire U.S. government debt. The bottom line: a major shift to renewables may be doable, but as IPCC economist Ottmar Edenhofer said, it would be “technically and politically very challenging.”

No real surprise there, as Andrew Revkin pointed out on Dot Earth yesterday:

The document doesn’t take readers much beyond what is already well established: that without sustained and focused climate and energy policies by governments around the world, the potential of renewable energy technologies to compete with fossil fuels remains deeply limited.

But as Nathanial Gronewold of Climatewire wrote in a smart piece today, the IPCC’s estimates may actually be much more optimistic than they seem, even with the high costs the group cites. That’s because the IPCC counts as a renewable energy source “traditional biomass”—the use of wood for heating and cooking, either as charcoal or directly burnt. As Gronewold notes:

The latest IPCC report estimates that in 2008, the renewable energy sources under their review contributed 12.9 percent of the world’s main energy supply, measured in a thermal energy output unit called an exajoule. Half of that is from traditional biomass, the IPCC admits, and the group offers little justification for including this most primitive source of energy in its calculations.

IPCC researchers say their estimates show traditional biomass usage shrinking over time, to be gradually placed by more modern biomass generation, whereby trees felled are actually replanted. But charts showing the possible scenarios of the growth of renewables’ share of energy still show biomass as the top source, even out to 2050.

The IPCC’s blending of charcoal production with modern practices like biomass cogeneration on farms or wood waste burning near cities makes it difficult to determine how much traditional practices are to be replaced by more modern ones. But the IPCC admits that traditional biomass’s share is larger, and the report suggests that its consumption will only fall slightly over the coming decades while modern biomass’s share expands gradually.

In one sense, of course, biomass can be considered a renewable fuel. If you cut down a tree and burn it for fuel, the carbon that is released can be absorbed by a replacement tree. That’s renewable in a way that oil—a finite source—would never be. But the dependence on biomass for energy is already a major component in deforestation and habitat loss for endangered species. For all the focus on logging and the clearcutting of trees for agriculture in countries like Brazil, a major source of deforestation comes from the use of trees for basic energy by those who live off the grid—whether they choose to or not. As if that’s not bad enough, traditional biomass is an incredibly inefficient source of energy, and a major cause of indoor air pollution, which is why it’s only used by the poorest populations in the world.

A future where traditional biomass remains a major source of energy is not a sustainable one—not for the climate, and not for the world’s poor. The IPCC likely knows that—the summary report cautions policymakers that any policies on biomass need to take into account the impact on existing forests and land use. But that fact shouldn’t be buried in the report. If we don’t count all biomass as renewable—and we shouldn’t—getting to a clean energy system by mid-century will likely prove even harder and more expensive than it looks today.

Read more: http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/05/10/why-does-the-ipcc-want-us-to-cut-down-trees/#ixzz1M3l8TjCp

Comments Off on IPCC: Let’s Destroy our Forests to Save the Planet!

Filed under Bioenergy / Agrofuels, Climate Change, Energy, False Solutions to Climate Change, Pollution, UNFCCC

Tagged as , , ,

by | 2010-12-18 · 12:08

Lunacy at the Moon Palace: Aka: The Cancun Mess(e)

By Anne Petermann, Global Justice Ecology Project Executive Director

Mexican RoboCop Poses for Photos in Cancun. Photo: Langelle/GJEP-GFC

Global Justice Ecology Project Co-Director/strategist Orin Langelle (on assignment for Z Magazine) and I arrived in Cancun for the UN Climate Conference the day after U.S. Thanksgiving to a hotel infested with Mexican federales.  “You’ve GOT to be kidding me,” was our immediate reaction.  We dodged their chaotically parked armored vehicles and jeeps to enter the hotel, where we found hoardes of uniformed officers armed with automatic weapons everywhere we went. The breakfast room, the poolside, the beach, the bar.  Walking out of our room (which was surrounded on both sides federales) I literally bumped into one.

Most of them were mere youths who, judging by the way they carelessly swung their weapons around, had not had sufficient gun safety courses…  Orin nearly collided with the barrel of one at breakfast one morning—its owner had it lying casually across his lap as he ate as though the deadly weapon was a sleeping cat.  When we were walking around that first day, we happened upon the bizarre scene above.  A photo shoot of fully armed robocops posing in front of a giant fake Christmas tree.

Absurd?  Yes.  But not nearly as absurd as the events that unfolded at the Moon Palace—home to the UN Climate Conference (COP16)—over the next two weeks.

Once upon a time at these climate talks, organizations and Indigenous peoples’ groups roamed freely.  They could wander around at will—even into the plenary, where the high level ministers were negotiating the fate of the planet.  No more.  The open range is now fenced off.  What precipitated such a radical change?  The overreaction of those in power to that strange and wondrous thing known as protest.

Reclaim Power March in Copenhagen. Photo: Langelle/GJEP-GFC

The UN Climate Secretariat and their security enforcers view protest as a bull views a red cape.  They go blind with rage, lashing out at whomever is in their line of sight.  When hundreds of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Indigenous peoples and Party delegates marched out of the UN Climate Conference at the Bella Center in Copenhagen in December 2009, the Secretariat responded by stripping every participant of their right to participate in the talks.  But before the protest even started, entire delegations of Friends of the Earth and other groups that had committed the sin of unpermitted symbolic protest earlier in the conference were barred outright from entering the Bella Center.

Since then, the UN Climate Secretariat has been scheming and conniving how to control these rogue factions and cut off any protest before it can begin.  At the interim UN climate meeting in Bonn that I attended last May, they had a special meeting to discuss “observer” participation in the climate COPs.  As a spectacular indication of the absurdity to come, when Friends of the Earth prepared an intervention (a short statement) for this meeting to emphasize the importance of observer participation to the UN Climate Conferences, they were prohibited from reading it…

So in Cancun, the UN Climate Secretariat contrived an elaborate set of demobilization tactics to curtail any potentially unruliness.  In addition to the highly visible force of federales, they devised a complex obstacle course for conference participants.

Anyone not rich enough to stay on the luxurious, exclusive grounds of the Moon Palace resort and (highly toxic) golf course—in other words, developing country parties, most NGOs, Indigenous Peoples and social movements—was treated to a daily bus ride from their hotel to the Cancun Messe (no, seriously, that’s what they called it) that lasted anywhere from 45 minutes to 2 hours, depending on how badly the federales had bottlenecked the highway. Once in the Messe, we had to go through a security check point and a metal detector, pass through a building and emerge from the other side to wait for a second bus (bus #9) to take us on another 20-25 minute ride to the Moon Palace.  Then in the evening, the process was reversed.

The Moon Palace itself was split into three sections—the Maya building, which housed the plenary session and the actual negotiations, the Azteca Building, where those not permitted into the negotiations (that is, most of the NGOs, IPOs and all of the media) were allowed to use computers and watch the proceedings on a big screen.

The media were given their very own building—the Nizuk building, which was yet another 10 minute ride from Maya and Azteca.  As you might imagine, it was virtually empty, as most of the media based themselves out of the Azteca to be closer to the action.

I had the pleasure of being a guest on Democracy Now! on the morning of December 9th, which meant finding my way to Nizuk, where the show was filmed live daily at 7am.  I left my hotel at 5:15am to catch a 400 peso cab to the Cancun Messe (no cabs allowed to go to the Moon Palace), then catch a bus to Nizuk.  I got there with 20 minutes to spare.

Democracy Now! and the other live broadcasts (their neighbor was Associated Press and around the corner was Al Jazeera) were filmed outside on the balcony.  While Amy Goodman interviewed me, her hair whipped in the gusty breeze.  A loud generator hummed nearby.  I wondered what they would do if they got a big rainstorm. (By the way, if you’d like to watch that interview, which was all about REDD [the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation scheme], click here)

But all of this nonsense was a mere inkling of what was to come.  One of the first real tests of the Secretariat’s demobilization strategy came on Tuesday December 7th, when Global Justice Ecology Project hosted a press conference that turned into a spontaneous march.  Our press conference was scheduled on the day that La Via Campesina (LVC) had called for the “1,000 Cancuns” global actions on climate, one of which was to be a mass march in Cancun itself.  The press conference morphed into another “1,000 Cancuns” protest inside the very walls of the Moon Palace.

GJEP had made the decision to turn the press conference over to LVC, the Indigenous Environmental Network and youth so they could explain the “1,000 Cancuns” actions in the context of the silencing of voices occurring in the Moon Palace. UN Delegates from Paraguay and Nicaragua also participated to express their solidarity with the day of action.  I moderated the press conference and introduced it by invoking the name of Lee Kung Hae, the South Korean farmer and La Via Campesina member who had martyred himself by plunging a knife into his heart atop the barricades in Cancun at Kilometer Zero during the protests against the World Trade Organization in 2003.  At that time, it was the global justice movement.  Now it is the climate justice movement.  But really it is the same—the people rising up against the neoliberal oligarchy: i.e. the elite corporados bent on ruling the world and running it into the ground.

Mass action against the WTO in Cancun in 2003. Photo: Langelle/GJEP

Back in 2003, Robert Zoellick was the U.S. Trade Representative who tried to force bad trade policies down the throats of so-called “developing countries” during the meetings of the World Trade Organization.  Today he is the President of the World Bank, and is trying to force bad climate policies down the throats of the developing world under the umbrella of the UNFCCC, aka the World Carbon Trade Organization.

Writing this blog post from San Cristobal de las Casas, in the Mexican state of Chiapas brings to mind one of the most hopeful attacks on this neoliberal paradigm—the uprising of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) on January 1, 1994—the day the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect.  The Zapatistas took up arms against NAFTA saying it would be a “death sentence” to the Indigenous peoples of Mexico.  Indeed, in order to be accepted into NAFTA, Mexico had to re-write Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution.  Article 27 was implemented to protect Mexican communal lands and came out of the Mexican Revolution led by Emiliano Zapata in the early 1900s.  But communal lands and free trade do not mix.  Edward Krobaker, Vice President of International Paper, re-wrote Article 27 to make it favorable to the timber barons.  Then it was NAFTA, today it is REDD—but the point is the same—it’s all about who controls the land.  The Zapatista struggle was and is for autonomy, which has been an objective of Indigenous communities for centuries.

But I digress.  Back to the press conference.  Pablo Solon, Bolivia’s charismatic Ambassador to the UN was supposed to be one of the speakers at the press conference but got tied up and could not get there.  Activists from Youth 4 Climate Justice requested to speak after yet again being denied an official permit to protest, and later turned the press conference into a spontaneous march. If they would not be given permission to protest then they would do so without.  Democracy is a messy thing.

Tom Goldtooth of IEN Speaks to the Media. Photo: Langelle/GJEP-GFC

The youth delegates marched out the press conference room chanting “No REDD, no REDD!”  The rest of us joined them but stopped on the front steps of the building when Pablo Solon suddenly joined the group. In the midst of a media feeding frenzy, he proclaimed Bolivia’s solidarity with the LVC march happening in the streets. Behind him people held banners from the press conference.  Following Solon’s speech, Tom Goldtooth, the high-profile Executive Director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, and one of the most vocal Indigenous opponents to the highly controversial REDD scheme, spoke passionately to the crowd.  When he was done, the youth delegates resumed their chanting and marched toward the Maya building where the negotiations were occurring.

Then UN security moved in.  They had to contain this anarchic outbreak before it spread through the halls and infected the delegates. The three youths, deemed to be the leaders of the unrest, had their badges confiscated and were loaded onto a security bus to be removed from the premises.  Other observers, not understanding the nature of this bus (it looking like all of the other buses), got on believing it would take them back to the Messe where they could then take yet another bus to join the LVC march.  This included three people accredited to participate by Global Justice Ecology Project.  They were removed from the UN grounds and dropped off.

The UN also stripped Tom Goldtooth of his accreditation badge for the terrible crime of giving a powerful interview to a hungry media.  Another of our delegates was de-badged for filming and live-streaming video of the spontaneous protest onto the web.  Another lost his badge merely for getting on the wrong bus.  Others for the outrageous act of holding up banners.

We did not learn that Tom and others had been banned from the conference until the next morning, when they attempted to enter and the security screen beeped and flashed red.  Alarmed and outraged, representatives from Friends of the Earth International, the Institute for Policy Studies, and I took the bus over to the Moon Palace to meet with NGO liaisons Warren and Magoumi.

The encounter was immensely frustrating.  We staunchly defended Tom Goldtooth and his right to speak publicly to the media.  We also defended the right of our delegate to film the protest.  I also spoke up in defense of the three de-badged youth leaders, explaining that this was their first Climate Conference and they should have been given a warning (as was the norm in Copenhagen) that if they continued the protest, they would lose their accreditation.  In one ear and out the other…  Magoumi responded that the youth’s delegation leader should have informed them of the rules, and besides, she pointed out, if someone was committed murder, would they get a warning that if they did it again they would get arrested? (Really… that was her response!)  Our retort that chanting and marching could hardly be equated with murder was waved off by Magoumi as though we were a swarm of gnats.

In the end, Tom got his badge back after pressure was put on the UNFCCC by country delegations.  But he lost one whole day of access to the talks.  Several of the other delegates never got their badges back.  Security had deemed them “part of the protest,” and there was no opportunity for appeal.

For GJEP, the repressive actions of the Climate COP had to be answered with action.  We were prepared to put our organizational accreditation on the line.  Someone had to stand up for the right of people to participate in decisions regarding their future.

Occupation of the Moon Palace. Photo: Langelle/GJEP-GFC

Six of our delegation (including our Board member Hiroshi) were joined by four more youth delegates plus representatives from Focus on the Global South and BiofuelWatch to occupy the lobby of the Maya building.  We locked arms in a line, blocking access to the negotiating rooms.  All but three of us wore gags that read “UNFCCC”.  Those of us without gags shouted slogans such as, “The UN is silencing Indigenous Peoples!” and “The UN is silencing the voices of youth!”—in both English and Spanish.

Warren and Magoumi were on the scene in a flash and I heard them directly behind me trying to get me to turn my attention to them.  Magoumi was tapping my shoulder while robotically saying over and over, “Anna…Anna…Anna…Anna…is this you ignoring me Anna?  Anna…Anna…” (not sure why she insisted on pronouncing the silent “e” in my name.)  When I continued yelling slogans, she changed tactics and walked directly in front of me.  “Anna, come on, let’s take this outside.  We have a place where you can do this all day long if you want to.  Anna…Anna…Anna…”  I have to admit to being slightly rattled by having to do my shouting directly over Magoumi’s head, but fortunately, she is quite short.

GJEP Board Member Hiroshi Kanno is Manhandled by UN Security During GJEP's Occupation of the Moon Palace. Photo: Langelle/GJEP-GFC

The scene had become another feast for the media, but after about 10 minutes, I could sense them tiring of the same old shots, so it was time to move.  As soon as we made a motion toward the door (arms still locked), security was on us in a flash and used pain compliance tactics on the two people who bookended our interlocked line—including our 73 year old Board member Hiroshi.  Surprise surprise, once we got outside we were not escorted to their designated “protest pit” where permitted protests were allowed to occur, as Magoumi had promised, but rather forced onto a waiting bus and hustled off the premises.  Jazzed with adrenaline, we all felt pretty damned good about what we had just done and the coverage we got—even when the UN security guard on the bus pointed out that if we had done that protest in Germany we would have been arrested.  “You’re lucky this is Mexico,” he sneered.  Indeed I have been threatened with arrest by German police for holding up paper signs protesting genetically engineered trees outside of a UN Convention on Biological Diversity meeting in Bonn.  German police have even less sense of humor than UN security.  None-the-less, those of us on the bus felt elated for taking action—for standing up for the voices of the voiceless.

You can view Orin’s photo essay from the Moon Palace Occupation by clicking here

Democracy Now! covered the silencing of voices at the Climate Conference in a feature that included our action and a youth action that followed later in the day.  During the latter, the media nearly rioted when a Reuters photographer was grabbed and beaten by UN security on one of the buses.  DN! ran the feature on Monday, December 13th following the end of the talks.  You can watch that coverage here

I have not yet heard from Magoumi or Warren if Global Justice Ecology Project has lost its accreditation to participate in future UN Climate COPs.  Or if any of us will be allowed to enter its premises in the future.  But those conferences are such energy-sucking, mind-numbing, frustrating clusterf#*ks that if we are not allowed back in, I can’t say I will have any regrets.

Next year’s climate COP will take place in Durban, South Africa, where the UN will face off with the social movements who, against all odds, brought down Apartheid.

Now THAT will be something…

African Country Delegates Protest Unjust Climate Policies in Copenhagen in December 2009. Photo: Langelle/GJEP-GFC

Signing off from San Cristobal de las Casas, near Zapatista rebel held territory in Chiapas, Mexico.

Comments Off on Lunacy at the Moon Palace: Aka: The Cancun Mess(e)

Filed under Actions / Protest, Climate Change, Posts from Anne Petermann, UNFCCC

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,