Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Inaction on Climate is "Criminal", Activists Say
WASHINGTON - The United States' delegation at the 17th annual Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN FCC) in Durban, South Africa has come under heavy fire from civil society leaders and activists around the globe for standing in the way of real solutions to climate change.
Protesters display their placards during a rally in observance of World Climate Day near the U.S. Embassy Saturday, Dec. 3, 2011 in Manila, Philippines. The protest coincided with the annual climate talks of the Conference of Parties (COP17) in Durban, South Africa. (AP Photo/Pat Roque) Between 15,000 and 20,000 farmers, unionists, teachers, peasants, students, garbage pickers, transport workers and other indignant citizens gathered outside the U.N. consultation chambers in Durban on Saturday calling for "system change, not climate change".
Many of these protestors marched to the U.S. embassy, demanding that the "world's biggest polluter" start supporting climate solutions that benefit the 99 percent.
In solidarity with their African counterparts, citizens in 20 cities across the U.S. rallied against the eco-destructive actions of the "one percent" as part of the Dec. 3 global day of action to save the planet and "occupy the climate".
Spearheaded by the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance (GGJA), a national network of grassroots organizations, along with the North American chapter of the 200 million member international farmers' movement, La Via Campesina, Saturday's events were an attempt to draw together disparate climate-related struggles under one banner.
"We are mobilizing to denounce quick fix solutions being promoted by governments and corporations – like carbon markets, REDD++, and geo- engineering – all of which are just creative ways for corporations to continue profiting at the expense of the people and Mother Earth," said Dena Hoff, a Montana-based member of the National Family Farm Coalition.
"As stewards of the land, feeding the world's people, we can't stand by as our ecosystems are destroyed for corporate greed," she added.
"U.S. government and corporations are the one percent responsible for the majority of pollution affecting the 99 percent of the world," Francisca Porchas of the LA-based Labor Community Strategy Center, said Saturday. "We demand that the U.S. immediately reduce carbon emissions to 50 percent of current levels by 2017, and stop obstructing progress towards paying climate debt and forging an internationally binding deal."
Actions in the U.S. kicked off Friday, when a delegation representing leaders from hundreds of Native American tribes presented President Barack Obama with the Mother Earth Accord, a document stating their opposition to the development of the bitterly contested TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline through Indian country.
"Recognizing that the pipeline would stretch 1,980 miles, from Alberta, Canada to Nederland, Texas, carrying up to 900,000 barrels per day of filthy tar sands crude oil," the Accord roundly condemned the project as "suicidal" for scores of Native communities and sacred sites as well as for the Ogallala Aquifer, which currently sustains millions of people and irrigates huge swathes of farmland throughout the heartland of the United States.
The U.S. government's indecision on the project, despite reported evidence of numerous spills and irrefutable data on the pipeline's impact, is indicative of its overall indifference to social movements and civil society's demands, activists say.
The U.S. delegation in Durban, led by special envoy Todd Stern and his deputy Jonathan Pershing, have remained immune to civil society pressure by continuing to push its agenda of promoting new "climate financing" systems to mitigate the impacts of carbon emissions and global warming.
This, despite the fact that a 2011 World Bank report, prepared for this year's G20 meeting in France and leaked to the British Guardian in September, confessed that global carbon markets are in deep trouble.
"The value of transactions in the primary CDM market declined sharply in 2009 and further in 2010 … amid chronic uncertainties about future mitigation targets and market mechanisms after 2012," the report said.
The failure of financial markets to regulate themselves, much less the climate, notwithstanding, Stern and Pershing have blocked even the most watered down proposals on the negotiating table in Durban, such as the establishment of a Green Climate Fund, endorsed by most developing nations as well as the Eurozone.
"The U.S. is putting the cart before the horse in terms of the climate fund by refusing to sign onto something before the details have been worked out," Jen Soriano, communications coordinator for the Durban delegation of the GGJA, told IPS. "In fact, nothing can be concretized until countries like the U.S. commit to the fund in the first place, so this is the perfect stall tactic."
"It reflects the administration's total inability to take the lead, even over a proposal that would essentially be managed by (controversial) for-profit actors like the World Bank," she added.
"The U.S. delegation also told a gathering of NGOs in Durban yesterday that they would absolutely not re-ratify an updated version of the Kyoto protocol until 2020… proving that there is no scientific basis to the U.S.'s agenda," Soriano said.
In fact, every noteworthy document on climate change, from the landmark Cochabamba People's Agreement signed last year in Bolivia to the U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) 2011 report, predict catastrophic results if industrial countries don't limit global warming to less than two degrees Celsius and follow the basic conditions laid out in the Kyoto protocol.
The signatories to the Cochabamba Agreement stressed, "Between 20 percent and 30 percent of species would be in danger of disappearing, large extensions of forest would be affected, droughts and floods would affect different regions of the planet, deserts would expand, and the melting of the polar ice caps and the glaciers in the Andes and Himalayas would worsen.
"Many island states would disappear, and Africa would suffer an increase in temperature of more than three degrees Celsius. Likewise, the production of food would diminish and the number of people in the world suffering from hunger would increase dramatically, a figure that already exceeds 1.02 billion people."
Meanwhile the 220 scientists who comprise the U.N.'s IPCC noted last month that "extreme weather events" would likely suck billions out of national economies and destroy millions of lives, particularly in Africa.
"We have to think not only in terms of loss of life but also climate displacement, the loss of homes, separation from families and poverty," Jill Johnston, programs coordinator of the Southwest Workers Union, told IPS.
In fact, the World Bank said back in February that an additional 44 million people were pushed into poverty this year as a result of rising food prices and millions more could be hungry by the end of 2012 if current trends continue.
"Viewed against this backdrop, the U.S. has been incredibly irresponsible at these talks. Its negligence in finding real solutions to the climate crisis often borders on criminal," Johnston added.

14 Comments so far
Show AllA number of folks here convinced me that man contributes to climate change. I have no idea what we can do about it. That said, this is where I see the argument as it stands today. Calling the people that don't believe there is global warming "deniers" it is a stupid strategy by the way and contributed to the present situation..
The U.S., Russia, Japan, Canada and the EU have all but confirmed they won't be signing on to a new "Kyoto". The Chinese and Indians won't make a move unless the West does. The notion that rich (or formerly rich) countries are going to ship $100 billion every year to the Micronesias of the world is risible, especially after they've spent it all on Greece and the rest of the PIGS
.
Cap and trade is a dead letter in the U.S. Even Europe is having second thoughts about carbon-reduction targets that are decimating the continent's heavy industries and cost an estimated $67 billion a year. "Green" technologies have all proved expensive, environmentally hazardous and wildly unpopular.
All this has been enough to put the Durban political agenda on hold for the time being. The Climategate emails, first released on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit two years ago and recently updated by a fresh batch, the "hide the decline" emails were an endless source of fun and lurid fascination for those who had never been convinced by the global-warming thesis in the first place. That is a real problem.
And the real reason they mattered is that they introduced a note of caution into an enterprise whose motivating appeal resided in its increasingly frantic forecasts of catastrophe. Papers have been withdrawn; source material re-examined. The Himalayan glaciers, it turned out, weren't going to melt in 30 years. Nobody can say for sure how high the seas are likely to rise—if much at all. Greenland isn't turning green. Florida isn't going anywhere. Remember, computer models are not "science" but tools.
This has all introduced a note of doubt to say the least. The "debate" is over for the foreseeable future.
I'm glad you posted here. Brace yourself for a lot of name calling.
That's a rather bizarre post: you believe in man-made climate change, and you don't believe there's anything that can be done about it. "If you don't believe you can fix a problem, you're right" would apply to you.
BTW: the 'frantic forecasts of catastrophe' have been replaced. Much of that is now history: drought in Texas, floods in Thailand and Australia, forest loss in British Columbia. People don't need forecasts anymore to know we are in deep trouble. But, keep your head in the sand. It appears to suit you.
""Green" technologies have all proved expensive, environmentally hazardous and wildly unpopular."
Your statements show your true colors. Just another paid shill for the oil companies. Your probably genetically related to the guy who cut the last tree on Easter Island.
Blah, blah, blah.
The U.S. hasn't been "incredibly irresponsible at these talks."
As a matter of fact, if you attend these talks YOU are being irresponsible because you are attending a phony show which the U.S. controls.
The United States of Global Corporate Domination has total control of (and responsibility for) how these talks will help destroy the environment further.
The IPCC is now a corporate controlled PR bureau. It must be rejected. The words "would likely" in their recent report are like watching a house on fire and saying that it "would likely" fall down and, at the same time, letting the people who started the fire tell them that the best thing to do is to start more fires.
The IPCC and the UN FCC are being "irresponsible" because they are merely putting on a show based upon what the US will allow.
Birdbrain Alley,
The US is going to have some kind of veto power over the initiatives of any international organization it participates in. By your logic, the UN and all other international organizations should be abolished because of the "total control" exerted over worldwide bodies by the US. Your position is not only opposed to these particular organizations, but also opposed to the very idea of an international approach to anything.
At least these talks in Durban, and articles like the one above, are exposing the culpability of the US as the spearhead of ecological nihilism. It's not much, but it's better than leaving climate issues unmentioned.
"Aleph Null"
I probably should have pointed to the idea of More gatherings like the one at Cochabamba. As long as an elite minority have the final say at the UN, it will remain a tool of that minority.
The Nations of "the global South" especially need to start an alternative and democratic organization and tell the UN that if it does not treat all nations as equals, it is not worth attending.
I don't see why the countries of the world with populations concerned about climate change can't draft articles that would make them a trade association. Within the trade association, countries would tax carbon properly and trade carbon-credits freely. I know carbon-credits are unpopular, but its the only way to make CO2 remediation efforts pay what they should (like, for example, bio-char). These countries would agree not to trade with countries OUTSIDE the trade association unless those countries products were taxed a tarrif equivalent to the true carbon cost of production, plus some penalty for being a scoff-law at this very serious global issue.
American's really don't want to do anything about climate change, but that doesn't mean other countries can't. The problem is that any country that does is simply taxing its own production, allowing America and other scoff-law countries to increase their market share. A trade association with a tarrif structure is a way of making sure this kind of trade-predation doesn't occur.
Of course, a trade association is a kind of cartel which is economic warfare, of a sort. But lets not kid ourselves: thats what the oil corporations are already fighting, and winning. This is a war for the future of our planet, and our childrens children, and we dare not lose it. Start a trade association, and punish countries that don't think this is the extremely serious issue that it is.
ubrew12, it may come down to what you are proposing. Unfortunately, it won't be enough. But it may be better than what exists today. In any case, attempts to bring the USA into "the international community" cannot be given up. That would be much too costly for everyone.
Anyone who still believes the U.S. is leading anything, is in serious denial. Its a bought democracy, and is being led by the nose by those who bought it: the 1%, many of whom are oil-rich.
Its time for smaller nations, particularly in the south and tropics, to deal with this issue themselves, to the degree that they can. Then, at least a framework would exist that the U.S. can follow then it gets its collective head out of its 8ss. 'United we stand, divided we fall'. Unless the poorer nations can stand united, they will fall one by one to the same greed-based denial that characterizes the U.S. By uniting they can step, gingerly at first, into this new era and eventually, perhaps, lead the rest of us out of our peril. But the 1% are prepared to punish any nation, individually, that steps 'out of line'. Thus, they must prepare to step collectively out of line, or like sheep, line up for the slaughterhouse.
Wait ! amerika is # 1 in World terrorism; '"War is terrorism with a big budget"...and of course, amerika IS # 1 in environmental destruction !
Leftoff, what a funny post! You almost had me believing that someone could be so out of touch with the issue they were posting about. Good stuff there. We need more humor when dealing with issues that are so serious as the complete annihilation of the planet.
>>"We have to think not only in terms of loss of life but also climate displacement, the loss of homes, separation from families and poverty," Jill Johnston, programs coordinator of the Southwest Workers Union, told IPS.
In fact, the World Bank said back in February that an additional 44 million people were pushed into poverty this year as a result of rising food prices and millions more could be hungry by the end of 2012 if current trends continue.
"Viewed against this backdrop, the U.S. has been incredibly irresponsible at these talks. Its negligence in finding real solutions to the climate crisis often borders on criminal," Johnston added.<<
Indeed, "CRIMINAL" is the correct description!
At this year’s climate talks in Durban, South Africa, representatives of indigenous communities worldwide are protesting at the barricades again, locked out of the talks on complex trade negotiations over carbon offsets, sequestration and deforestation.
More at Transition Times: http://bethechange2012.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/carbon-colonialism-just-say-no/