Throughout the week, Climate Connections will post short videos of participants in Rio+20 and the Peoples’ Summit.
Tag Archives: green economy
Video: What’s wrong with the green economy?: Joanna Cabello of Carbon Trade Watch at Rio+20
Comments Off on Video: What’s wrong with the green economy?: Joanna Cabello of Carbon Trade Watch at Rio+20
Filed under Climate Change, False Solutions to Climate Change, Rio+20
Rio+20 Alternative Peoples’ Summit opens today: People of the world vs. the “green economy” and global economic foreclosure
By Anne Petermann, Executive Director, Global Justice Ecology Project
Today is the opening day of the Cupola dos Povos–the alternative Peoples’ Summit for Environmental and Social Justice in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
It was pulled together by Brazilian groups and is being attended by social movements, Indigenous Peoples, activists and organizations from all over the world who are coming together to identify real solutions to the multiple and rising crises we face as humans on planet Earth. The summit was organized in direct opposition to the official UN circus known as the Rio+20 Conference for Sustainable Development. More aptly it would be called the Rio+20 Conference for the greenwashing of Business as Usual.
As I flew to Rio on 12 June, I read an article in the Financial Times titled “Showdown Looms at OPEC After Saudi Arabia Urges Higher Output.” The article explained how Saudi Arabia is urging OPEC to increase their output of oil in order to ensure that the global price of oil does not exceed US$100/barrel in order to “mitigate the risks that high oil prices pose to the global economy.”
The insane logic of expanding oil production in the face of mounting climate chaos in order to help rescue the global economy accurately reflects the mindset behind the negotiations around the UN’s Rio+20 Earth Summit, set to start next week here in Rio.
Continue reading
Comments Off on Rio+20 Alternative Peoples’ Summit opens today: People of the world vs. the “green economy” and global economic foreclosure
Filed under Actions / Protest, Bioenergy / Agrofuels, Climate Change, Corporate Globalization, Green Economy, Greenwashing, Indigenous Peoples, Land Grabs, Posts from Anne Petermann, REDD, Rights, Resilience, and Restoration, Rio+20, World Bank
Pablo Solón: It’s the time for the Rights of Mother Earth
by Pablo Solón
Cross-Posted from Pablo Solón’s blog
Victor Hugo, the author of Les Misérables, once wrote: “How sad to think that nature speaks and mankind doesn’t listen.”
Although we often forget it, human beings are a force in nature. In reality, we are all a product of the same Big Bang that created the universe, although some only see wood for the fire when they walk through the forest.
Nature is not a thing, a source of resources. Nature is a system, a home, and a community of living and interdependent beings.
Nature has rules that govern its integrity, interrelationships, reproduction and transformation.
States and society are not recognizing, respecting and making sure that the rules of nature prevail.
The philosopher Francis Bacon said that we cannot command nature except by obeying her. The time for superheroes and superpowers is coming to an end. Nature cannot be submitted to the wills of the laboratory. Science and technology are capable of everything including destroying the world itself.
It is time to stop and reaffirm the precautionary principle in the face of geo-engineering and all artificial manipulation of the climate. All new technologies should be evaluated to gauge their environmental, social and economic impacts. The answer for the future lies not in scientific inventions but in our capacity to listen to nature.
Green Economy is an attempt to put a price on the free services that plants, animals and ecosystems offer humanity: the purification of water, the pollination of plants by bees, the protection of coral reefs and climatic regulation.
For Green Economy, we have to identify the specific functions of ecosystems and biodiversity that can be made subject to a monetary value, evaluate their current state, define the limits of those services, and set out in economic terms the cost of their conservation to develop a market for environmental services.
For Green Economy, capitalism’s mistake is not having fully incorporated nature as part of capital. That is why its central proposal is to create “environmentally friendly business” and in that way limit environmental degradation by bringing the laws of capitalism to bear on nature.
Green Economy is absolutely wrong and bad because it thinks that the transfusion of the rules of market will save nature.
Humanity finds itself at a crossroads: Why should we only respect the laws of human beings and not those of nature? Why do we call the person who kills his neighbor a criminal, but not he who extinguishes a species or contaminates a river? Why do we judge the life of human beings with parameters different from those that guide the life of the system as a whole if all of us, absolutely all of us, rely on the life of the Earth System?
Is there no contradiction in recognizing only the rights of the human part of this system while all the rest of the system is reduced to a source of resources and raw materials – in other words, a business opportunity?
To speak of equilibrium is to speak of rights for all parts of the system. It could be that these rights are not identical for all things, since not all things are equal. But to think that only humans should enjoy privileges while other living things are simply objects is the worst mistake humanity has ever made. Decades ago, to talk about slaves as having the same rights as everyone else seemed like the same heresy that it is now to talk about glaciers or rivers or trees as having rights.
Nature is ruthless when it goes ignored.
It is incredible that it is easier to imagine the destruction of nature than to dream about overthrowing capitalism.
Albert Einstein said, “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” We can’t watch the destruction of Mother Earth and our selves. This is the time to begin to recognize the intrinsic laws of Nature. This is the time to respect and promote the rights of Mother Earth.
[1] Based and my speech as Permanent Representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to the United Nations, on the Occasion of the General Assembly Interactive Dialogue on Harmony with Nature, New York, April 20th, 2011.
Comments Off on Pablo Solón: It’s the time for the Rights of Mother Earth
Filed under Corporate Globalization, Green Economy, Greenwashing, Rio+20
How Green Is the Green Economy?
Four environmental organizers and researchers examine the ‘green jobs’ buzz.
Cross-Posted from In These Times
Any meaningful definition of “green jobs” should require real evidence of environmental, public health and community economic benefits.
A “green recovery” is being championed as a solution to both ecological and economic crisis, but the sanguine rhetoric has not always been matched by progress toward a more sustainable U.S. economy. Growth in “green jobs” has so far included waste incineration and offshore manufacturing of electric sports cars along with weatherization of homes and expansion of public transit. While the Right and industry lobbyists assail the very notion of green jobs, progressive critics argue that the catch-all term permits corporations to continue business as usual while banking public dollars to “greenwash” their image.
In These Times discussed the green jobs conundrum with four environmental organizers and researchers, including David Foster, executive director of the BlueGreen Alliance, a partnership between labor unions and environmental groups; Yvonne Yen Liu, a senior researcher with the Applied Research Center who has examined inequities in the green economy; Joanne Poyourow, a member of Transition Los Angeles, which organizes community-led responses to climate change and shrinking energy supplies; and Ananda Tan, U.S. program manager with the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, which mobilizes for clean energy and zero waste.
President Obama’s first campaign ad of 2012 touts 2.7 million jobs in the clean energy economy. Do the realities of green job creation match the hype?
David: 2.7 million is a sound but very conservative number – an awful lot of economic activity isn’t counted in that estimate. This is the section of the economy that’s growing faster than all others.
Joanne: To bank on green jobs as the salvation to bring this economy out of recession is giving people false hope. We’re facing a bio-capacity issue as well as a “greenness” issue. Many of the “green” industries that are being touted by corporations and government officials are really ways of greencasting North Americans’ excessive consumption.
There is no standard definition of a “green job.” Does this impact the ability to hold industries accountable? What should be considered a green job?
David: A green job is nothing but a blue-collar job with a green purpose. The green economy could pick up all the jobs that currently exist if we started using products we already make for different purpose – steel is used to manufacture Hummers, but it could also be used for wind turbine towers.
Ananda: Any meaningful definition of “green jobs” should require real evidence of environmental, public health and community economic benefits. Industry has duped lawmakers into gifting them billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies for false solutions – waste incinerators, biomass incinerators, clean coal and nuclear power – that divert public money, increase pollution and burn materials, which if recycled instead would create 10 times the new jobs.
Many have argued that a clean-energy economy can also be a more equitable economy. How true has this proven so far?
Yvonne: When we talk about green jobs, we often don’t include standards around race, gender and class equity. Less than 30 percent of green jobs are held by blacks and Latinos. Ninety percent of green construction and energy firms are managed and owned by white people.
Ananda: Designs and plans for the green economy need to be made at a community level, where there’s more expertise developing jobs that are not only green but good. In San Francisco, a unionized recycling company has achieved nearly 80 percent recycling while providing those jobs to the poorest in the city.
With fossil fuel production highly subsidized, how can clean energy be competitive? How dependent are clean-energy jobs on federal funding?
David: The failure to pass national clean-energy legislation was a great failure. A regulatory system that mandates targets and timelines on the goals for renewable energy production gives a clear signal to the private-sector economy that we intend to head in a different direction. Without that kind of broad policy, we’re left doing these initiatives piecemeal.
Yvonne: We don’t need to depend on the federal government to bail us out, because they haven’t yet. We can be resilient in our ability to sustain our families and our communities. The Alliance to Develop Power in Western Massachusetts is at the center of an $80 million community economy that started out by facilitating a housing cooperative, and then branched out into contracting and green construction work like retrofits and weatherizing. Community-funded projects like Solar Mosaic here in Oakland allow people to donate money to have solar panels installed, usually at a community center or nonprofit site. After it’s installed, the money gets paid to the investors and generates wealth for the community in the form of energy savings
Ananda: We need to re-localize our political priorities. Start with the governments we can hold accountable to come down on big polluters in our backyards, and shift the local subsidies – utility contracts, waste contracts – that are feeding polluting industries.
Joanne, tell us about your work in Transition Los Angeles.
Joanne: Transition is a network of grassroots groups that are asking: What will climate change mean for our local food supply? What can we do to ensure our energy and water supplies? Six years ago in L.A., five of us started by putting in a community garden in the site where we were meeting. Then we began gardening classes, rainwater harvesting demonstrations and a miniature orchard. We’re working in conjunction with the L.A. Unified School District (LAUSD) and the mayor’s office to build a new garden at a local middle school that will define some of LAUSD’s models for the entire area. We touch a few thousand people now through eight groups based in different neighborhoods.
How do your organizations build support for this agenda, particularly among groups worried about losing existing jobs?
Ananda: We need to break away from the dichotomy of jobs versus environment. If we doubled our national recycling rate, we could create 1.5 million new jobs, and the climate pollution reduction would be equivalent to taking 50 million cars off the road.
But given continued economic contraction, is the green jobs paradigm an adequate response to either the unemployment or the climate crises?
David: There is a green model of economic growth that can put Americans back to work doing the work that America needs done – the construction of mass transit systems, renewable energy production and infrastructure, the retrofitting of every commercial building and home in America. The fundamental problem has been that the Obama administration’s stimulus package was too small. But it’s given some clear signs about how to use green growth as a way to return us to full employment.
Joanne: To be depending on government dollars to re-float an economy that we saw in the ’80s and ’90s is unrealistic. Faced with a severe curtailment of our energy supplies within the next five-to-10 years, government is not that powerful. The current packaging of green jobs isn’t moving us toward something that is going to make our local communities more resilient. We are facing a future where we will have less ability to transport food, to manage our sewage and to move our waste. The transformation is going to be coming from a lot of much smaller industries.
Yvonne: I like the term “community economy” instead of “green economy” because it doesn’t allow corporations to use the cover of green jobs to continue with their same practices. We’re so naturalized to thinking within the system of capitalism. This moment is giving us a psychic break to think outside of that. I think the long-term solution does lie in community economies.
ABOUT THIS AUTHOR
Rebecca Burns, an In These Times staff writer, holds an M.A. from the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, where her research focused on global land and housing rights. A former editorial intern at the magazine, Burns also works as a research assistant for a project examining violence against humanitarian aid workers.
Comments Off on How Green Is the Green Economy?
Filed under Climate Change, False Solutions to Climate Change, Green Economy, Greenwashing, UNFCCC
Rio+20 and the Green Economy: The invisible resistance of women against the commodification of life
From our allies at World Rainforest Movement:
The “green economy” is a concept that has gained huge momentum largely thanks to its placement at the top of the agenda for the upcoming United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, better known as Rio+20.
While the concept is dressed up in “eco friendly” clothing, it does not promote any of the structural changes needed to combat the environmental and social problems facing the planet. On the contrary, it opens up new market niches for the flow of big financial capital. Essentially, it is simply another face of the same profit-driven market economy that has created the current crisis.
A great many social movements and organizations around the world are on the alert and fighting back against the advance of the so-called green economy. The March edition corresponding to the month in which we celebrate the International Women’s Day, highlights the role played by women in this resistance.
——————————————————————-
All around the world there are women struggling every day of the year. Since the 20th century, however, International Women’s Day has become a date on which their struggle is commemorated and highlighted. Women on every continent, urban, rural, indigenous, black, lesbian, among so many others, mark this date on the streets, raising their banners, which are countless, against gender inequalities that are manifested at the local and global levels.
Among the milestones in the international women’s struggle, we should not forget the World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna in 1993, where it was recognized that the rights of women are human rights. Another key moment was the adoption of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women, also known as the Convention of Belem do Para, in 1994. Violence against women, particularly so-called domestic violence, which takes place in the home, is one of the global phenomena that most seriously affects the lives and dignity of women.
Nevertheless, women’s lives are impacted by other forms of violence: the “double shift” entailed by paid work combined with domestic responsibilities, the overexploitation of their labour, the feminization of poverty and HIV/AIDS, the loss of their territories to large-scale projects, the pollution and degradation of the rivers and soil on which they depend for their subsistence. There is no doubt that women face a great many enemies, and perhaps the most ferocious of all, after patriarchy, is capitalism. The capacity of this mode of production to commodify life as a whole is felt most acutely by women. Women see the commodification of their bodies, transformed into merchandise, in the media and advertising, and are victims of the trafficking that feeds international prostitution rings. In addition, women must also struggle against the strategies aimed at the commodification of nature, such as the false solutions created for the alleged purpose of confronting the climate crisis.
So-called “environmental” non-governmental organizations and funds take control of collective forest areas and seek to restrict or even prohibit access to them by local communities in order to “preserve” these areas for the trade of “environmental services”, such as carbon storage in the case of REDD+ projects. In these situations, it is women who suffer most from the constant humiliation and repression that occurs in places where these types of projects are implemented.
When a community suffers the loss of its collectively used territory to projects aimed at the trade in environmental services, one of the invariable consequences is the surveillance and persecution of the community by forest rangers and, above all, public and/or private armed militias. Women, who stay at home to tend to domestic chores, raise crops and care for their children, become the most vulnerable to this persecution.
In addition, in areas affected by carbon or environmental services projects, shifting cultivation or swidden farming tends to be prohibited. This is a common practice among forest communities, in which women play a key role. It ensures a basic supply of healthy food for families and, at the same time, allows them to earn an income by selling surplus crops nearby.
In view of this, it can be concluded that the changes caused by the creation of market mechanisms for the use of nature violate a basic right: the right to food, and in particular, the right to healthy food. It is also important to remember that changes in dietary habits, through the introduction of industrially processed foods and crops grown with toxic agrochemicals, have led to the emergence of new diseases that were formerly unknown in these communities.
The loss of areas in which food crops can be grown also results in other impacts: many women are forced to go out and sell their labour ever farther away from their homes. But even though they have taken on new tasks in the world of paid work, women continue to be primarily responsible for domestic tasks. The work overload suffered by women has contributed to making them more prone to illness. Diseases like breast and cervical cancer are striking women at increasingly younger ages. High blood pressure, which used to be one of the main health problems faced by men, now affects more women than men.
The greatest irony of all, perhaps, is that although women are the ones most severely impacted, it is their images that are used in publicity to promote carbon trade and other environmental services projects.
We believe that our role, not only on March 8, but every day of the year, is to contribute to raising the visibility of women’s struggles and realities, as well as to support the struggles of women’s organizations against all forms of oppression, including the new wave of the commodification of life in these times of the green economy.
Comments Off on Rio+20 and the Green Economy: The invisible resistance of women against the commodification of life
Filed under Biodiversity, Climate Change, Green Economy, Rio+20, Women
Pablo Solon on the International Campaign Against the Commodification of Nature
A bottom-up international campaign against the commodification and financialization of Nature
By Pablo Solon
Cross-Posted from No Green Economy
The draft zero for Rio + 20 Conference of the United Nations -entitled The Future We Want– was published in January 2012. Its main purpose is to promote a “Green Economy”. In draft zero, this concept of the Green Economy is left deliberately vague: there is no clear definition provided and no clarity on the usage of this term. In reality, however, it aims to promote the further commodification and financialization of nature by introducing new market mechanisms such as carbon markets that were first introduced a decade ago through the Kyoto Protocol and REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) programs which put a monetary price on carbon storage in forests.
The concept of “Green Economy” is developed in the Green Economy Report published by the UNEP (United Nations Environment Program). The report concludes that the energy crisis and the climate crisis amount to “the failed allocation of capital” and the solution to these crises is to give a monetary value, a price, to the elements and processes of nature. Indeed, this “Green Economy” agenda attempts to solve the current multiple crises by ushering in a new, more aggressive, stage of capitalism to recover lost growth and profits!
If we act quickly, there is still time to block this takeover of Rio+20 by their Green Economy. We can succeed if we join the concrete actions of the movements against extractionism, genetically modified organisms, tar sands, forest destruction, climate change, privatization of water and many others. The key to stopping this new attack on our “Mother Earth” is to build a campaign with the social movements, indigenous peoples, women, youth, peasants, the Occupy Movement, the “Indignados” and more.
We also need to ensure that those countries that do not want to put a price on nature, or are against the development of markets of ecosystem services, maintain their position against the “Green Economy”. In many ways, we now face a challenge similar to that of the MAI (Multilateral International Agreement) which was stopped in 1998 by the first global Internet campaign or the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) which was defeated by the mobilization of the movements of the Americas.
The No to the “Green Economy” campaign will target the process of negotiation of the “zero draft” and the Rio + 20 Conference (20 – 22 June 2012). Instead of trying to impose the rules of the market on nature we must respect nature’s vital cycles through the recognition of the rights of nature. Our common future depends on it!
Nature is not for sale.
The commons must not be privatized.
Life does not have a price.
Porto Alegre, Brazil January 28th, 2012
Comments Off on Pablo Solon on the International Campaign Against the Commodification of Nature
Filed under Climate Change, Green Economy, Rio+20
Radio Hour: Keystone XL Pipeline Decision, Analysis of the Durban Disaster, Preparing for Rio+20
The KPFK’s Sojourner Truth show on January 19th hosted a special hour-long Earth Segment devoted to discussing the announcement of the Obama Administration that it was rejecting the Keystone XL tarsands pipeline, as well as analyzing the outcomes of last month’s UN Climate Conference in Durban, South Africa, and what comes next for the climate change movement with the Rio+20 Earth Summit to be held in Rio de Janiero in June.
Speakers on the show included Tom Goldtooth, Executive Director of Indigenous Environmental Network, Teresa Almaguer, Youth Program Director at PODER!, a member of the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, and Anne Petermann, Executive Director of Global Justice Ecology Project.
To listen to the hour-long show, go to: Sojourner Truth show Jan 19, 2012
Global Justice Ecology Project and the Sojourner Truth show partner each week for an Earth Minute every Tuesday and an Environmental Segment every Thursday.
Comments Off on Radio Hour: Keystone XL Pipeline Decision, Analysis of the Durban Disaster, Preparing for Rio+20
Filed under Carbon Trading, Climate Change, Climate Justice, False Solutions to Climate Change, Green Economy, Indigenous Peoples, Rio+20, Tar Sands, UNFCCC
Corporate Clown Cast Out of Climate Circus
CODE of CONDUCT CONSERVED; ELITES ELATED as CLIMATE COLLAPSES!
After a press event held by Global Justice Ecology Project (GJEP) at COP17 in Durban, South Africa today, one of the panelists, Kevin Buckland, was ejected from the Summit.
His offence? Clowning around.
The press conference also included Desmond d’Sa of the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance, Ricardo Navarro of Friends of the Earth El Salvador, Kandi Mossett of the Indigenous Environmental Network, and Anne Petermann of Global Justice Ecology Project. The topic at hand was the failure of COP17 to meet the needs to the great majority of the world’s population, and social movements’ concerns that the looming emergence of the so-called “Green Economy” is bringing a wave of landgrabs, speculative bubbles, and the increasing commodification of all forms of life.
In a gesture intended to stimulate critical thought, to bring levity to the profoundly gloomy conclusions of the COP, and to garner media attention for the grassroots community perspectives that are summarily excluded from this high level global event, a team of clowns, with Buckland as their ringleader, were invited by GJEP to speak on the panel.
Buckland, who has been involved with Occupy COP17 as part of the youth delegation, began his statement to the media with the statement, “I have a dream. My dream is that one day corporations will be judged not for their actions, but for the amount of the earth’s surface that they control.”
Unfortunately, the United Nations failed to get the joke.
While being interviewed following the press conference, Buckland was grabbed and hauled away. His badge was taken, and he was barred from the International Conference Center.
See the interview here:
Photographer Orin Langelle, on assignment for Z Magazine (and, in full disclosure, also the co-Director of Global Justice Ecology Project), followed the clown and his UN Police escort, and received his own share of rough treatment. UN Police “shoved the camera into my face,” says Langelle. The photographer’s vocal reaction, defending his status as a journalist, drew more attention by both UN Security and delegates.
The incident serves to reveal that, in the words of Andrea Palframan, one of the filmmakers who shot the video above, “these negotiations are so corporate controlled that there really is not place for civil society here anymore.”
The backstory, with analysis:
Comments Off on Corporate Clown Cast Out of Climate Circus
Filed under Actions / Protest, Climate Justice, False Solutions to Climate Change, Green Economy, Media, UNFCCC