The United Nations-led Climate Conference at Cancun was not a diplomatic disaster, but for climate activists and grassroots groups, it wasn't a success either. Representatives sent from around the globe to hammer out an agreement on climate change were unresponsive to grassroots concerns about how to lower carbon emissions quickly, and how to ensure fairness in the process.
"Some grassroots groups are losing their faith in the U.N.'s capacity to produce meaningful results," Madeline Ostrader reported for Yes! Magazine. "After the United Nations expelled Native American leader Tom Goldtooth from the meeting last week, the Indigenous Environmental Network called the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change 'the WTO of the sky.'"
While gloomy reports before the conference worried that international negotiations could veer entirely off course, the representatives at the conference did come up with an agreement that fleshed out last year's Copenhagen Accord. It became clearer, though, that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process will not ultimately guard the interests of less powerful players.
"It's pathetic the world community struggles so much just to climb over such a low bar," commented [Kumi] Naidoo, [executive director of Greenpeace.] "Our only real hope is to mobilise a broad-based climate movement involving all sectors of the public and civil society before Durban."
Indeed, this year's conference saw a greater mobilization of outside forces than Copenhagen did. But by the end of the conference, activists were frustrated with the UN-led process, Democracy Now! reported, and began protesting in the area near the conference, under the close watch of UN guards:
When the demonstrators continued their vigil past the time allotted to them, U.N. guards moved in and dragged them towards a waiting bus. The protesters linked arms, and the scene quickly became chaotic. As they wrestled activists onto buses, U.N. guards also seized press credentials from the necks of journalists, and detained a photographer while seizing his camera.
Running REDD
There was one issue in particular, Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation or REDD, a financial tool that allows countries to offset their emissions, that caused concern among climate activists. As Michelle Chen explained at ColorLines, "From a climate justice standpoint, the deal lost credibility once it was tainted with REDD, a supposed anti-deforestation initiative that indigenous communities have long decried as an assault on native people's sovereignty and way of life."
The program would seek to set aside forests, through financial incentives that would make it more profitable to preserve forests than to harvest them. The problem, in essence, is that the program would take away resources in developing countries, particularly in indigenous communities, in order to mitigate negative actions in developed countries.
At IPS, Stephen Leahy reported, "REDD remains very controversial. It is widely touted as a way to mobilise $10 to $30 billion annually to protect forests by selling carbon credits to industries in lieu of reductions in emissions. ... Many indigenous and civil society groups reject REDD outright if it allows developed countries to avoid real emission reductions by offsetting their emissions. "
Developed vs. Developing
Balancing the interests of developing and developed countries has always been the thorny tangle at the center of climate negotiations, and the Cancun Agreement, critics say, favors developed countries.
As Tom Athanasiou writes at Earth Island Journal, "There's an even deeper concern, that, in the words of the South Centre's Martin Khor, 'Cancun may be remembered in future as the place where the UNFCCC's climate regime was changed significantly, with developed countries being treated more and more leniently, reaching a level like that of developing countries, while the developing countries are asked to increase their obligations to be more and more like developed countries.'"
REDD is an example of that sort of bargain: Developing countries have to sacrifice, too. But developed countries have, in this conference and at its predecessors, refused to make any real sacrifices. This round, it became clear that, in addition to the United States, other key countries, like Japan, would not be willing to commit to binding legal targets for carbon emissions.
Who benefits?
What's worse, developed countries benefit, indirectly, from the financial mechanism proposed to regulate carbon, Madeline Ostrader writes.
"Many of the proposals for financing and regulating climate are designed to earn profits for the same banks that brought the global economy to its knees," she explains. "Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase have been vying for a stake in the global carbon offset trade-a proposed economic model for cutting emissions around the world."
The movement of non-governmental groups and activists fighting to hold rich countries accountable has gained momentum in the past year. If international leaders are ever to move away from these imbalanced agreements, that movement will have to grow and convince a vocal majority of people around the world to support its calls to action. Only then will leaders feel pressure to write stronger, fairer agreements.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Weekly Mulch: Why the Senate Climate Bill is Doomed
by Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), though down one man, finally released their stab at climate legislation this week. One of the most crucial sections in the bill covers off-shore oil drilling, an issue that was supposed to help solve the tricky math of reaching 60 votes. But since the Deepwater Horizon rig sank in the Gulf of Mexico, drilling has become a wedge issue.
Just a few weeks ago, off-shore drilling could have been a point of compromise around which Senators could rally votes to pass the climate bill; now the bill had to strike a new balance to mollify both potential allies who oppose drilling, like Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and those who support drilling, like Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA). The draft that Sen. Kerry and Sen. Lieberman released this week allows for expanded drilling but gives states veto power over new projects.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who worked on the bill, said that he had not seen the changes his two colleagues had made since he dropped out of the drafting process-but he looked forward to reviewing their work. Although Sen. Kerry says he thinks the bill can pass, without support from Sen. Graham or another Republican, chances are slim.
Next steps
Now that the two Senators have released the bill, the only work that remains is to pass it.
"There's not enough time for a bill to go through the committee process, get passed by the Senate, sent to conference, amended, and then passed by the full Congress before the midterms, and after the midterms Democrats will probably be reduced to 53 or 54 members in the Senate."
Not everyone agrees that the bill's chance are so dire, though.
"I think the chances are roughly as good as they've ever been in the Senate: low but non-trivial," says Grist's David Roberts.
Kerry's argument
But should green-minded politicos root for the bill's passage at all? Sen. Kerry and Sen. Lieberman worked closely with energy companies while drafting the bill, and the resulting legislation balances the need to reduce carbon emissions with the interests of prime polluters. The bill includes incentives for old energy industries like coal and natural gas, for instance, and exempts farmers from carbon caps.
On Wednesday, Sen. Kerry made his case to left-leaning environmentalists. "A comprehensive climate bill written purely for you and me - true believers - can't pass the Senate no matter how hard or passionate I fight on it," he wrote for Grist. The bill they have, he wrote, can pass, and that victory outweighs the compromises in the legislation.
Responses from the left
On Democracy Now!, Phil Radford, the executive director of GreenPeace USA, said that most environmental groups have given the bill little more than a "tepid endorsement." Radford squared off on the show with Joseph Romm of the Center for American Progress, who supports the bill.
"This will be the first bill ever passed by the Senate, if it were to pass, that would put us on a path to get off of fossil fuels," Romm said.
The two men were also divided over issues like the impact the climate bill could have on international negotiations.
They agreed, though, there is room for improvement; the only question is whether the politics of climate change will allow for the passage of a stronger bill any times soon. As Kevin Drum wrote, "If you think this year's bills are watered down, just wait until you see what a Congress with a hair-thin Democratic majority produces."
Coal and natural gas
Tripping up environmentalists now, though, are the hand-outs to dirty energy industries. The coal and natural gas industry could both benefit from the provisions of the Senate bill, for instance.
On GritTV, Jeff Biggers, a writer and educator who covers the coal industry, explained his frustration:
"The climate bill is a nice first step and a very well meaning effort for someone like Sen. Kerry who's been working on this issue for 20 years. But at the same time, because of the massive big coal lobby that has poured millions of dollars into lobbying congress on this climate legislation...there are all sorts of little panders and loopholes and exemptions."
"What we see in this bill is that Sen. Kerry and Lieberman want to ensure coal's future," he said.
The booming natural gas industry also had a hand in shaping the bill and benefited from it. Environmental groups like the Sierra Club favor natural gas as an energy source over coal, and as Kari Lydersen reports in Working In These Times, the industry is driving job growth at a time when the economy needs a boost.
But as Alex Halperin reported last month for The American Prospect, in the places where drilling is occurring, like Ithaca, NY, activists are arguing that the environmental risks could outweigh those economic benefits.
Drill or be drilled
That devil's bargain-risking natural resources for jobs in the energy industry-went the wrong way for the Gulf Coast, and states like Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida are paying the price even before the oil hits shore.
As I report in AlterNet, the Gulf's economy could lose billions of dollars and is suffering already from the misconception that its beaches are tarred with oil. With this catastrophe still fresh in voters' minds, the Senate climate bill proposes pushing new drilling initiatives 75 miles offshore and giving affected states veto power over these projects.
Depending on how long the memory of the Deepwater Horizon spill lasts, politicians could have a good reason to veto drilling. Public News Service reports that 55% of Floridians now oppose off-shore drilling, "almost a complete reversal from one year ago."
Blame game
Certainly no one is stepping up to take responsibility for the explosion off the coast of Louisiana, as the Washington Independent reports. At a hearing this week, officials from British Petroleum, which was operating the well, Transocean, which owns it, and Halliburton, which was doing contract work that may have caused the problem, all denied wrongdoing and pressed the blame on each other.
It's starting to look Halliburton played a key part. "The focus is increasingly shifting to the role of Halliburton, which poured the cement for the rig, as well as for another operation that spilled oil off the coast of Australia last August," writes Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones. The company apparently did not place a cement plug that would have kept gas in the well before emptying it of the mud that was holding in the flammable gas.
Anyone living in a state that could have new drilling off their coast should keep this catastrophe in mind if their politicians are given the option of vetoing new projects.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Greenpeace is a fiercely independent and non-partisan campaigning organization. We stand to tackle the planet's most threatening environmental problems and achieve solutions. Partisan politics is not our game.
Global warming is the most critical problem facing our planet, requiring a massive shift in our nation's priorities. It's not just an issue for progressives - solutions will only be reached when liberals and conservatives move to achieve them. Greenpeace's global warming campaign, Project Hot Seat, is working to get Congress to reduce carbon emissions to a level prescribed by the scientific community in order to preserve life on this planet as we know it. Washington's 8th district, represented by Congressman Dave Reichert, has been a priority of Greenpeace since early 2006.
The progressive community has made Reichert a frequent punching bag, and sometimes rightly so. After all, it wasn't until Greenpeace began to mobilize his constituents last year that he finally expressed an opinion on global warming. At first, Reichert made claims that the science wasn't in, that it was unclear to him that global warming was indeed caused by humans. Through aggressive campaigning that put Reichert in the hot seat, his tune eventually shifted to more accurately reflect that of his constituents. Volunteers and Greenpeace members made hundreds of phone calls, delivered bundles of letters and petitions, met him at every public event to talk to him about the issue, and sat down with him in his office to lay down their demands.
Greenpeace is a fiercely independent and non-partisan campaigning organization. We stand to tackle the planet's most threatening environmental problems and achieve solutions. Partisan politics is not our game.
Global warming is the most critical problem facing our planet, requiring a massive shift in our nation's priorities. It's not just an issue for progressives - solutions will only be reached when liberals and conservatives move to achieve them. Greenpeace's global warming campaign, Project Hot Seat, is working to get Congress to reduce carbon emissions to a level prescribed by the scientific community in order to preserve life on this planet as we know it. Washington's 8th district, represented by Congressman Dave Reichert, has been a priority of Greenpeace since early 2006.
The progressive community has made Reichert a frequent punching bag, and sometimes rightly so. After all, it wasn't until Greenpeace began to mobilize his constituents last year that he finally expressed an opinion on global warming. At first, Reichert made claims that the science wasn't in, that it was unclear to him that global warming was indeed caused by humans. Through aggressive campaigning that put Reichert in the hot seat, his tune eventually shifted to more accurately reflect that of his constituents. Volunteers and Greenpeace members made hundreds of phone calls, delivered bundles of letters and
petitions, met him at every public event to talk to him about the issue, and sat down with him in his office to lay down their demands. Over the last few months, he supported stronger fuel economy standards for cars and trucks and signed onto the Climate Stewardship Act, a good bill that is a step in the right direction, but doesn't go far enough. Last week he voted for the House energy bill, and was one of only 14 Republicans to do so. Greenpeace will continue to applaud our
targets when they meet a specific demand and we will continue to encourage him to co-sponsor the strongest global warming bill in the House--the Safe Climate Act.
Greenpeace doesn't endorse candidates. Reichert's leading opponent in next year's election, Darcy Burner, has a strong position on global warming solutions. She has stood up and committed to supporting strong action on climate change, if elected. Greenpeace will continue to push both candidates for this office to adopt truly visionary global warming plans. Unless Dave Reichert leaves his seat or is unseated, it's his vote that counts in the House. Please join us in our effort to turn up the heat on Rep. Reichert. When it comes to global warming, we need Republicans too. We only have one chance to get this right. Progressives should understand that.
I ran into Al Gore at a climate/energy conference this month, and he vibrates with passion about this issue - recognizing that we should confront mortal threats even when they don't emanate from Al Qaeda.
"We are now treating the Earth's atmosphere as an open sewer," he said, and (perhaps because my teenage son was beside me) he encouraged young people to engage in peaceful protests to block major new carbon sources.
"I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers," Mr. Gore said, "and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants."
Say it, Al! But it's not just young people who need to do it - everyone needs to join in, starting with you. Shutting down coal plants, blockading palm oil importers like Imperium Renewables and other rainforest destroyers, and stopping work at oil refineries could move the climate debate beyond just personal action and put the spotlight squarely on the big polluters who are the real culprits behind the problem.
This could be Al Gore's Gandhi moment (especially appropriate for a Nobel Peace Prize nominee). It would be great if you (in conjunction with say, Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network and other civil disobedience-oriented environmental groups) announced a day of civil disobedience to confront polluters - and were the first one to get arrested. You'll find thousands of people (self included) to back you up.
If you're interested in being one of those people, click here to send Al Gore a fax letting him know you're ready to participate in civil disobedience on behalf of the planet.
STATE BLOGS
