To:

Zcom_simple
Home » ZMag » Anne Petermann » Convention on Climate Change
?1295269164

February 2007

Volume , Number 0
Activism

There are no articles.

Commentary

There are no articles.

Culture

There are no articles.

Features

Memorial
Aaron St. jean


Electoral Politics
Paul Street


MediaBeat
Norman Solomon


Interview
Gabriel matthew Schivone


Hotel Satire
Lydia Sargent


Nuclear Power Not Clean, Green, …
Sherwood Ross


Economy
Jack Rasmus


Green Tide
Anne Petermann


Fog Watch
Edward Herman


Collective Challenges
Chris Heneghan


Foreign Policy
A.k. Gupta


Labor Notes
Tiffany Ten eyck


Z Papers on Strategy
Eric Dirnbach


Global Politics
Nick Dearden


Crisis Management
Nicolas J.S. Davies


Gay & Lesbian Community Notes
Michael Bronski


Conservative Watch
Bill Berkowitz


Global Justice
Hans Bennett


Zaps

There are no articles.

NOTE: Z Magazine subscribers and sustainers have access to all Z Magazine articles here and in the archive. The latest Z Magazine articles available to everyone are listed in the Free Articles box at the top of the table of contents, and are starred in the list below. Questions? e-mail Z Magazine Online.

Convention on Climate Change

We cannot continue to put our faith in bodies such as the UN to solve this problem for us

By Anne Petermann
PDF Version
Printer Friendly Version
February 2007
 Change Text Size a- | A+

T he focus of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2006, held in Nairobi, Kenya was the CDM—the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism. The CDM is designed to enable rich countries to avoid their own emissions reductions by funding so-called “clean development,” or emissions reductions, in poor countries. 

African lobby groups, headed by Climate Africa, condemned the inaction of industrialized countries stating, “We are concerned that the developed countries are not keen to take drastic action to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.... Instead they are singly and collectively increasing their greenhouse gas emissions.” 

During a side event on avoiding deforestation hosted by the European Union, ministers and UN representatives spoke at length about the importance of ending logging in native forests as a means to limiting the impacts of global warming. The solution, they concluded, was to create a huge fund to give developing countries incentives to protect their forests, which would be facilitated by assigning standing forests a dollar value for their so-called “ecosystem services.” 

While the information presented on the importance of standing forests for the climate and biodiversity was extensive, the lack of information on the forces driving deforestation was glaring. The presenters ignored the financial pressures forcing countries to log their forests, leaving the impression that poor countries cut their trees because they have nothing better to do. 

There was no mention of structural adjustment conditions imposed by the World Bank and IMF that force poor countries to sell off their natural resources at rock-bottom prices to repay development loans. There was likewise nothing said about the continually escalating demand for wood products from Northern countries, much of which winds up in landfills as disposable packaging, junk mail, or advertising. 

This side event was emblematic of the overall UNFCCC, which emphasized problem-solving through capitalism—namely the creation of funds, and the development of market mechanisms like carbon trading that promise billions in profits while doing nothing to truly address the problem of global warming. The concepts of consumption reduction and lifestyle change were altogether lacking, except when raised by NGOs or Southern countries. Grace Akumu of Climate Africa likened the North-centric emphasis of the talks to the widely protested negotiations of the World Trade Organization (WTO), “Just like the WTO, rich countries are skewing negotiations in their favor.” 

 

Disaster Capitalism 

I n addition to emphasizing the role of the market in climate strategies, corporate capitalists are seizing on the growing concern about climate change to sell previously controversial projects as “solutions” to global warming. In this way, huge monoculture tree plantations, large-scale production of biofuels, genetically engineered trees and crops, massive hydroelectric projects, and nuclear power can be sold to a Northern audience as a means to maintain a grossly over-consumptive lifestyle while supposedly making a positive contribution to the fight against global warming. 

The unfortunate truth about these projects, however, is that they do little to mitigate climate change while causing tremendous environmental and social impacts. This fact led the Global Forest Coalition to organize a weekend workshop called Life as Commerce: Indigenous Peoples Seminar on Carbon Trading, held in Namanga, Kenya on the Tanzanian border during the weekend lull of UNFCCC. The seminar included indigenous representatives from around the world. Some participants gave presentations on the impacts their communities have experienced due to carbon trading schemes in an effort to alert other indigenous representatives about the hidden dangers of carbon offset proposals, many of which are geared toward the lands of indigenous peoples. 

Following the seminar, a collection of environmental groups held a press conference in  Nairobi to condemn the promotion of such false solutions to global warming. World Rainforest Movement, Global Justice Ecology Project, Gaia Foundation, STOP Genetically Engineered Trees Campaign, Global Forest Coalition, and Large Scale Biofuels Action Network came together to demand real action against climate change and an end to measures that merely relocate the costs of the unsustainable consumption patterns of the North onto poor Southern countries where indigenous communities pay a particularly high price. “Soya plantations in Latin America and palm oil plantations in Indonesia, being developed for biofuels, are driving deforestation and pushing hundreds of thousands of farmers and indigenous peoples off of their lands. Once again the developing countries of the South are being asked to pay the price for the unsustainable lifestyle of the North,” stated Miguel Lovera of Global Forest Coalition. 

Ana Filippini, from the World Rainforest Movement, insisted that by their very nature, the temporary carbon storage of monoculture tree plantations cannot be looked at as a permanent solution. They do, however, cause tremendous impacts, including exhaustion of soils and ground water and displacement of indigenous and rural communities who must be evicted from the land to protect the carbon storage of the trees. “The UNFCCC needs to move away from these complicated and fraudulent carbon trading schemes. It should begin to address seriously the issues of how to phase out fossil fuels and how to stop deforestation,” she stated. 

Genetically engineered trees and crops promoted as a source for biofuels or a component of carbon sink plantations were also opposed. Arguments against genetically engineered plants and trees are many, and include contamination of native forests and conventional agricultural crops with potentially destructive engineered traits. GE trees have the potential to devastate forest ecosystems by contaminating native trees with pollen or seeds engineered to kill insects, resist toxic herbicides, or grow faster. “The escape of pollen or seeds from GE trees into native forests would cause severe and totally unpredictable ecological impacts that could impact the ability of forests to store carbon, worsening global warming. They must be banned,” insisted Orin Langelle of the STOP GE Trees Campaign. 

The fact that genetically engineered trees puts the world’s forests at risk was highlighted in a sign-on letter written by the Global Justice Ecology Project and the World Rainforest Movement. The letter was distributed to delegates and media and demands a reversal of the 2003 UNFCCC decision that legalized the use of GE trees in carbon sinks under the Kyoto Protocol. The letter demanded that the UNFCCC rescind its decision legalizing use of GE trees in order to put its policies in line with the March 2006 decision of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, which warned of the dangers of genetically engineered trees and urged countries to use a precautionary approach with regard to the technology. 

Regarding the biofuel issue, Dr. Andrew Boswell of the UK-based Large Scale Biofuels Action Network, pointed out that even if biofuels are produced only with conventional non-genetically engineered components, if produced on a large-scale, they will still not be a helpful alternative to fossil fuels. In 2005 competition for grain led to a 60 percent increase in grain prices, favoring the use of grain for biofuels and escalating the numbers of people who cannot access enough food. “The amount of grain needed to produce enough biofuel to fill a single SUV tank could feed a person for a year,” he stated. 

The growing demand for biofuels is also driving the logging and burning of native forests in places like Indonesia where land is being cleared to make room for plantations of oil-rich palm trees. In addition to displacing communities and driving species to extinction, this deforestation is accelerating climate change. “Fires in Indonesian forests in 1995 released more carbon emissions than the entire European Union that year. Large-scale production of biofuels is clearly not a strategy that is going to benefit the fight against global warming,” stated Teresa Anderson of the Gaia Foundation. 

But perhaps the most contentious climate change abatement strategy is carbon trading. Modeled after the pollution-trading allowed by the U.S. Clean Air Act and championed by Al Gore during his vice presidency, carbon trading enables corporations and governments to avoid reducing greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing carbon credits. These carbon credits can come either from carbon offsetting projects like tree plantations, which are established under the guise of “development” in poor countries, or from countries like Russia that have an excess of carbon credits. Because the carbon emission allowances are based on 1990 emission levels, countries like Russia—which saw many of its industries shut down after 1990—have an abundance of excess carbon emission credits, which they can sell off to the highest bidder. The theory is that the limited supply of carbon credits being traded will kick in the laws of supply and demand and the market will take over and solve the problem. (For an excellent critique, read Carbon Trading: A Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatisation and Power , by Larry Lohmann of The Corner House.) 

Ignoring for a moment the insufficient emission reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol—which call only for reductions of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels when climate scientists agree that immediate reductions of at least 60 percent are needed to avoid climate catastrophe; and ignoring the numerous and substantial carbon reduction verification problems with this market-based strategy—there is the inescapable dilemma that the United States, which is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases (with 6 percent of the world’s populace producing 25 percent of the global emissions) will not endorse any global warming strategy. 

We cannot continue to put our faith in bodies such as the UN to solve this problem for us. Just as people around the world have risen up against the WTO, massive protests must be organized against leaders that refuse to take real, meaningful action to stave off climate catastrophe. Otherwise we face a very uncertain future.  

Anne Petermann is co-director of the U.S.-based Global Justice Ecology Project, which is a founding member of the Durban Group for Climate Justice. 
Loading_border