Peoples' Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth on 19-22 April

It seems that Bolivia has decided to take matters into its own hands where climate change is concerned. In response to the failure at Copenhagen, the Bolivian government will be hosting independent open talks intended to mkae progress where industrialised nations failed to. Below is the announcement of said talks y the Bolivian ambassador to the UN, Pablo Solón.

"In the aftermath of the Copenhagen climate conference, those who defended the widely condemned outcome tended to talk about it as a "step in the right direction". This was always a tendentious argument, given that tackling climate change can not be addressed by half measures. We can't make compromises with nature.

Bolivia, however, believed that Copenhagen marked a backwards step, undoing the work built on since the climate talks in Kyoto. That is why, against strong pressure from industrialised countries, we and other developing nations refused to sign the Copenhagen accord and why we are hosting an international meeting on climate change next month. In the words of the Tuvalu negotiator, we were not prepared to "betray our people for 30 pieces of silver".

Our position was strongly criticised by several industrialised countries, who did their brazen best to blame the victims of climate change for their own unwillingness to act. However, recent communications by the European Commission have confirmed why we were right to oppose the Copenhagen accord.

In a report called International climate policy post-Copenhagen (pdf), the commission confirmed that the pledges by developed countries are equal to between 13.2% and 17.8% in emissions reductions by 2020 – far below the required 40%-plus reductions needed to keep global temperature rise to less than 2C degrees.

The situation is even worse once you take into account what are called "banking of surplus emission budgets" and "accounting rules for land use, land use change and forestry". The Copenhagen accord would actually allow for an increase in developed country emissions of 2.6% above 1990 levels. This is hardly a forward step.

This is not just about gravely inadequate commitments, it is also about process. Whereas before, under the Kyoto protocol, developed countries were legally bound to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a certain percentage, now countries can submit whatever targets they wantwithout a binding commitment.

This dangerous approach to climate negotiations is like building a dam where everyone contributes as many bricks as they want regardless of whether it stops the river.

The Copenhagen accord opens the dam and condemns millions.Various estimates suggest that the commitments made under the accord would lead to increases of between three to four degrees celsius – a level that many scientists consider disastrous for human life and our ecosystems.

For Bolivia, the disastrous outcome of Copenhagen was further proof that climate change is not the central issue in negotiations. For rich countries, the key issues in negotiations were finance, carbon markets, competitiveness of countries and corporations, business opportunities along with discussions about the political makeup of the US Senate. There was surprisingly little focus on effective solutions for reducingcarbon emissions.

President Evo Morales of Bolivia observed that the best way to put climate change solutions at the heart of the talks was to involve the people. In contrast to much of the official talks, the hundreds of civil society organisations, communities, scientists and faith leaders present in Copenhagen clearly prioritised the search for effective, just solutions to climate change against narrow economic interests.

To advance an agenda based on effective just solutions, Bolivia is therefore hosting a Peoples' Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth on 19-22 April, and inviting everyone to participate. Unlike Copenhagen, there will be no secret discussions behind closed doors. Moreover the debate and proposals will be led by communities on the frontlines of climate change and by organisations and individuals dedicated to tackling the climate crisis. All 192 governments in the UN have also been invited to attend and encouraged to listen to the voices of civil society and together develop common proposals.

We hope that this unique format will help shift power back to the people, which is where it needs to be on this critical issue for all humanity. We don't expect agreement on everything, but at least we can start to discuss openly and sincerely in a way that didn't happen in Copenhagen."

just a short one but if this selection of photos was not meant to highlight the wealth gap then i don't know what is...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/gallery/2010/feb/24/24-hours-in-pictures

Failure for developing nations at Copenhagen: Where do we go from here?

By any standards, and despite the protestations of western politicians, the climate change summit in Copenhagen failed those most in need of solemn commitments to reduce emissions- developing nations. The Danish text, a pre-organised accord between the wealthiest participants, left developing nations seemingly voiceless before proceedings even began. The Bolivian delegation described negotiations as ‘anti-democratic, anti-transparent and unacceptable.’

These allegations are, at least in part, ratified by the outcome. At the close, the deal was brokered between the wealthy and powerful- India, South Africa, the U.S., Brazil and China. The 2009 Copenhagen Accord is non-binding and not only fails to hold the world temperature rise at 1.5C but also omits the original aim to cut world emissions by 80% by 2050. These original aims are not arbitrary numbers-they are widely agreed to be the minimum required to avoid climate disaster for developing nations and the world. Funding for developing nations to adapt to climate change was set at $100 billion per year by 2020. However, as both the source and legal status of this funding are vague, a little scepticism about it actually materialising is justified.

Lumumba Di-Aping chair of the G77 group of 130 poor countries described the accord thus:

"[This] is asking Africa to sign a suicide pact, an incineration pact in order to maintain the economic dependence of a few countries. It's a solution based on values that funneled six million people in Europe into furnaces."

To describe the G77 group as dissatisfied would not, it seems, cut the mustard.

The blame game which has been so prevalent in the western media is a futile one. However, a comment from Barak Obama is particularly striking.  On the failure to reach a wider agreement he said that to wait for a binding accord would have resulted in no progress being made at all. Such a statement of resignation from the “Yes we can!” President of the United States is deeply troubling and is evidence of a lack of resolve and commitment from the most powerful nation in the world. If the U.S. is unable, or unwilling, to act how are third world nations to make progress?

Dan Smith, secretary general of International Alert, has formulated a strategy to push the multi-lateral climate change agreement forward. He asserts that a major problem with the current style of climate discussions is that those states who choose to hold out in order to obtain more nationally favorable agreements are allowed to win by default. To combat this attitude among the most developed nations, there must be a change in the tone of discussions from factional adversary to problem solving and from self-sacrifice to the idea that climate change accords can be mutually beneficial. He suggests that those nations who have shown promise at past climate change talks such as South Korea, Japan, Mexico and Australia, should agree to a solution based around creating a strong green economy and then sell it to the hold-outs- China, India and the U.S.  Progress by bypassing those who block it.

There is also a lot to be said to grass roots projects and individual action in the wake of international failure. Improved cook stove projects, now widespread in India and Africa, seek to protect both the environment from deforestation and in turn the livelihoods of people who use them. Grassroots groups working in the Amazon aim to protect the forest by demonstrating the economic benefits of leaving the environment intact. In the UK too, the benefits of  having an energy efficient home and creating less food waste have been widely publicized.

However, in these straitened times ideas such as these appear to me as drops in the ocean, like trying to put out a fire one ice cube at a time. I must admit to a personal sense of cynicism and demoralization. Without international accord, we can only delay the inevitable. Suggestions on a postcard please.

http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/59204/2010/00/5-123117-1.htm