EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Draft Climate Deal Dubbed a "Death Sentence for Africa"
DURBAN, South Africa - No one is happy late Friday at the very contentious U.N. climate talks that went into extra time on Saturday. As the lights flicker on a rainy night here, the partial power failure echoes the failure of the multilateral process, according to civil society and some countries.
Protesters rally in Durban on Dec. 3, 2011. This COP is a" disastrous failure", said Praful Bidwai, a political columnist and social scientist from India who has just published a book on the politics of climate change. It would be far better for the talks to collapse than to cobble together a "greenwash deal" that pretends to be addressing the climate crisis, he added.(Credit:IPS Africa) "If countries agree to the text as it stands, they will be passing a death sentence on Africa," said Nnnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends of the Earth International and a Nigerian activist.
And yet African countries and other vulnerable countries might go along because they will be bullied or bribed, said Bassey.
When Bolivia stood up to the United States at the Copenhagen climate meet in December 2009, Washington pulled its development aid the next year.
"Delegates must show that they care about the devastation across the continent and small island states .... or are they going to yield to arm twisting because a few dollars are being hoisted about," Bassey said.
So far African countries are not blocking an agreement, he told IPS.
Thursday night, a select group of ministers and senior delegates from 28 countries met until four a.m. to work on the key components, but failed to reach a consensus. The following day, when all countries began to review the details, wide disagreements arose over many of the same issues.
The initial commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, under which 37 industrialised nations have committed to an average of five percent carbon emission reductions compared to emission levels in 1990, will expire at the end of 2012.
"Countries won't agree to a second period of the Kyoto Protocol until the next COP (conference of parties)," said Pablo Solon, former U.N. ambassador from the Plurinational State of Bolivia and former chief negotiator at the Cancun COP 16, the last meeting prior to Durban.
"Kyoto will lose its heart...it will become a zombie," said Solon, who has seen the confidential details that weren't released publicly until late Friday night.
Countries will "only take note" of the science-based need to increase their emission commitments well before 2020. In addition, the key phrase "legally binding agreement" that nearly every country wanted is absent, he said.
"The U.S. is the big winner here...This will lead us to a future with more than four degrees of warming," Solon warned.
The world has months to curb emissions from burning fossil fuels before the critical benchmark of two degrees Celsius of warming will be impossible to stay below. Delay a few years, and the extraordinary emission cuts needed could bankrupt the world's economy and reverse development gains in most countries, climate experts have warned.
This COP is a" disastrous failure", said Praful Bidwai, a political columnist and social scientist from India who has just published a book on the politics of climate change. It would be far better for the talks to collapse than to cobble together a "greenwash deal" that pretends to be addressing the climate crisis, he added.
"The U.S. can't be trusted at these talks. They will never agree to anything legally binding," Bidwai told IPS.
The U.S. was the chief architect of the Kyoto Protocol during climate talks in the early 1990s, but never ratified the treaty even though it only called for emission reductions of five percent by next year. At the same time, Canada supported and ratified Kyoto but did nothing to comply, so its emissions soared 24 to 28 percent during the intervening years.
Europe is little better, even though its emissions appear have gone down more than 20 percent. Much of that is due to the collapse of the Eastern European bloc during the 1990s, and the shift to importing its goods from elsewhere and thus avoiding emissions. Spain, Italy, France and others have had major increases, Bidwai said.
If international trade and local consumption of imported goods were accounted for, the CO2 emissions in Germany and France would have increased by more than 20 percent during the last 20 years, according to two new studies.
Similar estimations are true for all the major industrialised countries.
"It could all fall apart. Many low-income developing countries are very angry," said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
These are the world's poorest countries, like Mali and small Pacific islands.
At Durban, Canada and the U.S. were awarded the "Colossal Fossil" prize by civil society for doing the most to block progress on a new climate agreement.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
50 Comments so far
Show AllThis is my first post. Best Christmas greetings to all americans...
from Europa
Welcome Atta, we have been dying for a friendly Troll.
These "climate" talks are that definition of insanity.
Keep doing the same things and expecting different results.
These talks seem to be tourism events. All of these people go around the globe spewing more toxins so that the UN can guarantee nothing changes except the local monetary boosts.
The protesters who travel to these insane displays of increasing debauchery are also contributing to what they are protesting against.
The UN is a corporate tool. Stop buying their crap.
I have to agree. Even IF a group of countries' leaders sign a piece of paper to cut back CO2, later, when the pedal hits the medal, the public's demand for: Mustangs, Plane trips to Vegas, Shopping Centers FULL of junk delivered by big trucks, etc will prevail. We, as a species and economy, over the last 150 yrs, have had the luxury of cheap gasoline, with which to grow, thrive, build, sell, and manufacture. Nothing (not solar, wind, tidal) is near as efficient as gasoline. Nothing. Not even close. I think things are going to get a lot worse. There is no way we will be able to keep the same lifestyle we've had the past 50 yrs. And Africans know this and don't want to see their development restrained when we - USA, Europe, E Asia - enjoyed huge economical benefit of cheap gasoline to get to where we are today. Sorry for my pessimism, but that's the way I see it. :-(
The title of the article states that the fall out from climate change talks would be a "death sentence for Africa." But nowhere in the article is this clearly explained, and I wondered why Africa would be worse off than other continents due to the predictable failure of climate change talks.
Then I came across your comment saying: " I think things are going to get a lot worse. There is no way we will be able to keep the same lifestyle we've had the past 50 yrs. And Africans know this and don't want to see their development restrained..."
Is it that the continents that experience the least economic justice are likely to be used and abused by the developed countries for whatever residual energy is left to mine? Is Africa going to be even more used and abused than it has been in the last few hundred years? If so, why not make this assertion in the first paragraph, then spend the rest of the article explaining the details of how Africa will be colonized all over again, but this time, they will suffer probably much like the Native Americans suffered, killed off and corralled into reservations.
Birdbrain Alley:" The climate talks are the definition of insanity". Well, what do you expect in an insane world, where corporations rule? I agree, these climate talks are at the best wishful thinking and a total waste of time. Until there is a shift in consciousness and a new world wide paradigm where people are more important than profits, nothing will change. The polluters are like drug addicts, but instead of drugs they are like the 1%; addicted to industrial greed and profits. But the shame of it all is where the drug addict is slowly killing himself, the polluters are not only slowly killing themselves, but are taking us and the rest of the world with them!
You must live somewhere in the USA where people can still afford their electric bills in the winter, and enough gasoline to get to work, and food. People here don't ride airplanes to go anywhere, and are getting pretty worried about the changes in the weather. This is like OWS in that it isn't being driven by charismatic leaders, it is coming from people who are hurting and want real change.
The Climate talks are failing because of the corporate sociopaths, not because of the people (who you dismiss as 'protesters') who are doing the only things they can do to make themselves heard.
Why is Africa, the cradle of civlization having to suffer like this?
Well, you know, the whole place is just a dump filled with n*gg*rs and wild animals.
Your sarcasm scared me. A lot of people actually believe that and operate accordingly.
I know.
In my comment above I asked the same thing and put forward this line of questioning/ reasoning:
Is it the case that the continents which experience the least economic justice are likely to be used and abused by the developed countries for whatever residual energy is left to mine in the world? Is Africa going to be even more used and abused than it has been in the last few hundred years? If so, why not make this assertion in the first paragraph, then spend the rest of the article explaining the details of how Africa will be colonized all over again, but this time, they will suffer probably much like the Native Americans suffered, killed off and corralled into reservations.
I think the real answer is that humans in Africa are a lot less stable than they are on the other continents. Africa is beautiful and large, but there are not the resources that one might expect, there is less ariable land with access to water than the other continents and desertification is on the rise in the north where there is also little water. Some countries, like Libya are going to do OK with oil, but most will not. South Africa and the southern countries are maybe better off, but not that much. The growing water crisis is going to do a real number on Africa is my guess. The areas that do better will find themselves the destination for those closer to the equator where things are going to be worse.
I spent quite some time in southern Africa and the countries there that are along the water, SA, Mozambique, maybe Tanzania are going to do better than the rest but the entire continent is not that hospitable. (however beautiful the land and people may be!)
Why is Africa, the cradle of civlization having to suffer like this?
I agree with Praful Bidwai, at this point:
It would be far better for the talks to collapse than to cobble together a "greenwash deal" that pretends to be addressing the climate crisis.
The convention center staff in Durban has already starting cleaning up to prepare for the next meeting. Todd Stern and all the other clowns have successfully blocked any hope of meaningful international action - probably for years to come. Given the debased state of international institutions, it's difficult for advocates of worldwide measures to imagine a way forward from here. Sauron has seized the ring, and Mordor stands triumphant.
Time for candle light vigils for the world.
I think pitchforks and torches around the world would be more effective.
Agreed. But don't let the dogmatic pacifists hear you say that.
I'm going to make sure you understand something very clearly right now.
Just because I think that pacifism has failed (as much as I might wish otherwise, I won't lie to myself or anyone else about it) does not mean that I am on your side.
Your sneering contempt for people younger than you, your doomerism, your casual disregard for the lives of just about everyone who lost their Pure Noble Culture of the Earth virginity (tm), mark you to me as almost as deserving of my loathing and derision as any Democratic apologist. You don't seem to give one fraction of a flying fuck about a whole host of people that are also victims of the system, and much of what you say comes across to me as just another white guy deciding who should die.
It's not contempt, or doomerism, or disregard for others.
It's refusing to sugarcoat the very real disasters staring us in the face called rampant Fascism, massive resource depletion, and environmental collapse, which will by the way, be the death of all of us. You and me included.
I personally think any and every professional politician, regardless of party affiliation, should be dragged out into the street and shot for their crimes.
And it's because of the mounting toll of 'victims of the system', that system everyone is SO willing to try and work with when it has been demonstrated time and again that the system will screw us, that I am so pissed.
With so very few avenues of action open to us, and even fewer being 'socially acceptable', you damn betcha I have no patience with those who are satisfied that with standing meekly by and not being hit quite so hard was a victory.
So what if I'm white, so what if I'm male?
I'm being honest, and I will not hide my emotions just to make some easily offended person happy. If you want everyone to agree with you, then nothing will get accomplished, and we might as well just roll over and get it over with.
I don't know about you, but I'm fighting back. I will not go quietly.
profits uber alles
Here's another view from a blog post on the [Earth in Brackets] site (the group that the young girl who gave that speech, Anjali Appaduria belongs to):
An appeal to sanity - by nathan thanki:
*********************************************************
Yesterday, a large group of civil society – mostly youth – took the voice and anger of the street into the halls of the UN. While it could never have been a true #occupy – COP is inherently segregated into those with badges and those without; those with pink badges and those with yellow – the idea was still to say: enough is enough. You have had 20 years to negotiate a fair, ambitious, legal treaty. You have failed. We pass a vote of no confidence in you, governments of the developed world.
While there aren’t always clear good and bad guys in these negotiations (despite the US and Canada’s best efforts to be the absolute worst), there is a clear divide of North and South. The North has historically exploited the South, and has historically used up it’s share of natural resources and atmospheric space. All at the detriment of the South. All you need to do is see a flow chart diagram of money, trade, and resources to see. The wealth of the world accumulates in Europe, in North America, in Australia and Japan. But they can’t afford to pay for adaptation and mitigation? They tell the poor of the world to do it for themselves. They’ve gotten rich from burning mountains of coal and oceans of oil, but now they refuse to cut their emissions unless the poor take that burden too? Civil society is divided over whether or not this is a fair ask. The calls for “treaty now” are fine - so long as it is a fair treaty. The concern that some NGOs have is that demanding a treaty by 2015 for everyone is asking India and China to write off their hopes of tackling poverty. More than that, because of low ambition and loopholes, it writes off all our hopes of a livable world in the future.
The media, eager to feed the hatred that Europeans and Americans seem to have toward any kind of competitor – India, China, Iran, Brasil etc – are running with the theme: blame the big developing nations. The EU is loving this. They can split G77 unity by appropriating the calls of the island states and LDCs for emissions reductions, and point the finger at India. Some elements of civil society are helping: Avaaz ran an ad in the Financial Times that showed Africa burning, while grim reapers from USA, Canada, Russia and India floated overhead. So the march yesterday was somewhat split. There were back and forth shouts of “treaty now” and “equity now.”
...
... I understand that the Avaaz blunder is causing them some grief, but it was only an expression of an idea that seems to be gaining ground among civil soceity – that the blockers should be blamed and shamed. But, wouldn’t you block a suicide pact? It is better to frame it like this: who does a block actually benefit? Not China, not India, but the developed nations. Europe and the States, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. If it all falls to pieces, then hey presto – they don’t have to live up to their promises, and they don’t have to fulfill their responsibility. If it goes through as it stands, then it’s curtains for ambition, it’s curtains for AWG-LCA, and it’s curtains for the planet.
[AWG-LCA - the "Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention, is a susidiary body under the Convention established by the Bali Action Plan to conduct a comprehensive process to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action, ..."]
The islands will sink, Africa will burn, the political status quo will remain. We can’t let our planet be taken hostage by the greedy, just like we can’t let our democracy be taken hostage by the greedy. Greed is the right term. Notice how the only thing the rich countries want to share with the poor is the responsibility to reduce emissions. They do not want to share their wealth, their technology, their patented intellectual property.
We should not help perpetuate the lies of the rich and powerful.
I implore activists and others engaging in the struggle to think. Think about who you represent and how. When you find yourself talking about urgency in the negotiations, ask: where are we urgently going, and who gets hurt along the way? Who suffers from a “better than nothing” EU deal? Think about who has already suffered from climate change. Think about who has already acted to stop it. Then think about who the real blockers are. Please consider the true grassroots. The millions living in poverty in India, China, Brazil. Are you seriously going to condemn them to death? Or are you going to stand with them against the real polluters?
This is very telling as to why the African continent, and the southern hemisphere region, generally will suffer due to the predictable breakdown of climate change talks:
"Notice how the only thing the rich countries want to share with the poor is the responsibility to reduce emissions. They do not want to share their wealth, their technology, their patented intellectual property."
The rich always only want their profits private to themselves and their risks shared with the public. The writer says "The islands will sink, Africa will burn," which means climate change is the result of the waste coming from the developed countries in the northern hemisphere. The reason Africa will get a death sentence from the developed world is due to the poisonous waste they put up with that they did not create.
Good comment.
While the blog post An appeal to sanity - by nathan thanki, which I posted above, seems to put the emphasis on equity and cautions against brushing aside equity considerations in the name of "urgency" which would ONLY benefit those who are already rich, I have to say this:
I am extremely frustrated that countries like China, India, Brazil and South Africa (BASIC) have not formulated a clear, sane strategy that would try to do a better job of balancing their developmental needs while meeting the most urgent requirement of reducing GHG emissions or at least greatly slowing them down, to be capped in the next few years. (Asking them to cap their emissions right now seems impractical, since some of the rich countries that have already reached a certain state of overall development are unwilling to cap their emissions in the name of economic growth needs).
The lack of a sane, serious proposal from the BASIC countries may be a clear indication that the 1% are firmly in control in these countries as well. The rich in these countries are "hiding behind the poor" using low per capita figures, while actually trying to emulate the rich in the western countries in their own lifestyles. And these are the people who seem to be driving the policies of their governments and their positions in these negotiations.
I exclude Russia from this list (part of the so-called "BRIC") because I have always maintained that Russia is one of the most corrupt and suspect players in all of this, as they have NEVER once indicated that they are serious about taking action on reducing emissions. Not once!!!
This may also be an indication that the "policy" to divide the developing countries so that no common position would emerge among them is "working". But then, who would be the real beneficiaries of such a division among the developing countries? That's the question asked in the blog post I posted above.
I have always maintained that all non-essential, wasteful consumption with a large carbon footprint must stop. And that should apply to all the countries. And there is no reason that developing countries should repeat the same folly of a high-carbon developmental pathway of the rich countries. This is where serious cooperation becomes important. This is where some form of financial and technical assistance from the developed countries can be used to allow other countries to follow a less carbon-intensive path to development as they try to lift their millions out of poverty. The fact that such assistance has not been forthcoming in any meaningful way from the rich countries (there was some in the early years of Kyoto-1) shows that greed is the number one driving force right now. I think it is time for ordinary people everywhere to take charge of the situation.
I'm sure the majority of you know the definition of insanity, doing the same thing time after time and expecting better results. Now that we have seen, for the umpteenth time, that those people cannot come to a place that makes this huge problem change, there has to be a change in WHO is having these discussions and WHO is leading. Until enough people actually give a rat's ass about the disaster coming to us daily...there will be continual insanity. and a destruction our grandchildren, who survive, will fully and completely blame on ALL OF US.
A lot of people care, but the pampered elites don't in the words of that old Raiders song "care if you live or die." As to the remarks which I want to think were simply sardonic about Africa being less stable than say the West. Let's be clear about this the West has as Martin Luther King Jr explained explotied the Third World by "invidual capitalists investing huge sums in Asia, Africa, and South America only to take the profits with no concern for the social betterment of the countries. . ." This as Dr King said is due to "The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them" and as he put it so aptly "This is not just." This Dr King concluded along with the Western and especially US problems in the Third World is due to being on the "wrong side of the world revolution." We need to remedy that.and get on the right side of that revolution, a "people's revolution" as Henry Wallace called it before it's too late. Wallace put well indeed when he said "No compromise with Satan (Wall Street and its gang today) is possible." Wallace and Dr King had it right. Let us heed their sage advice! The people "all over the globe" are rising up "against old systems of exploitation and oppression" as Dr King put it. "We in the West must support these revolutions" as Dr King warned us.
Let us set a course to put all on a path to a "people's century" as Wallace called for, not an "American century" of US domination of other nations which Wallace inveighed against.
Terrible terrible. I am sick at heart about how we are letting the world slip away bit by bit. What can we do? Giving up is not an option.
No Sir - abandoning these talks, the United Nations, and the political process is not the way forward.
Like Global Warming, politics and the military, good guys and bad guys are here to stay.
Naomi Klein sees this, and I am going to re-post a comment I made on another thread.
Listen up Utopians - this is the real world talking - and a way forward that can work - that must work if we are to avoid a complete meltdown, both politically and climatological.
Naomi Klein's article in "The Nation", "Capitalism vs. the Climate", seems to me a work of genius, and directly addresses the issues you have brought up.
I will highlight Naomi's main points, but the article in its entirety is in my opinion a must read for all progressives and environmental NGO's:
1. Reviving and Reinventing the Public Sphere
2. Remembering How to Plan
3. Reining in Corporations
4. Relocalizing Production
5. Ending the Cult of Shopping
6. Taxing the Rich and Filthy
Summary
"So let’s summarize. Responding to climate change requires that we break every rule in the free-market playbook and that we do so with great urgency. We will need to rebuild the public sphere, reverse privatizations, re-localize large parts of economies, scale back over consumption, bring back long-term planning, heavily regulate and tax corporations, maybe even nationalize some of them, cut military spending and recognize our debts to the global South. Of course, none of this has a hope in hell of happening unless it is accompanied by a massive, broad-based effort to radically reduce the influence that corporations have over the political process. That means, at a minimum, publicly funded elections and stripping corporations of their status as “people” under the law. In short, climate change supercharges the pre-existing case for virtually every progressive demand on the books, binding them into a coherent agenda based on a clear scientific imperative."
http://www.thenation.com/print/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate
Manysummits
=====
PS
My own suggestion, in addition to those listed above, is "Rights for the Environment", a topic first elucidated in a powerful legal argument by Christopher Stone, Professor of Law in California in 1972, in his seminal "Should Trees Have Standing." Look it up - read it - comment later.
Every goal that Naomi spells out would be at least partially addressed were this Rights for the Environment to be accepted in International Law.
But I fear this is not obvious to the casual observer.
So become more than a casual observer.
====
More !
The #OCCUPY Movement is a start, not a finish, and even if it makes you feel good inside, until OWS gets political, and dives deep into the muck with the rest of us, nothing will happen except collapse.
I do not want to see collapse - you do not want to see collapse.
Focus and Win.
Sacrifice is real - check out "March of the Penguins" and you will see all life on Earth - LUCA's descendants.
I have taken to carrying around Mark Maslin's "Global Warming" (2009), an Oxford 'Very Short Introduction". It is pocket size, and is packed with just the right graphs and tables - an all in one to show to interested parties.
Everyone who can understand and explain climate must do so for the rest of our lives, I would imagine. That's one part.
Everyone can make decisions. You don't like banks and high finance - don't deal with them - nobody is forcing you to borrow - so don't.
You don't like fossil fuels - then walk.
Etc...
Or
You can compromise, like the rest of us already deep in the muck - and figure a way out of this mess.
Manysummits
========
Africa and the low-lying islands will suffer most, as will the coastal regions of India, Bangla Desh, and most other tropical nations. China is going to be hit hard.
However, the extreme "weather events" will become more frequent and more extreme in the industrialized North too. This past year saw several billion in damages in the US alone. Europe is going to see equally devastating "events" because of climate change.
No matter, really, since the oceans are dying faster than the continents; Fukushima and garbage ships dumping deadly toxins in every body of water are just hastening the terrible disappearance of sea species.
30% of species of plants and animals worldwide will vanish in the next couple of decades or sooner.
Now, if we could only wipe out 80% of the human species --preferably the one that owns and manages the technology and the science-- the remaining 70% of species might stand a chance. Unfortunately, imho, the 80% of humans who will be wiped out in the next 50 years will be those least guilty of environmental destruction and the survivors (for a while), the 20% who control finance and technology at the expense of the other 80%. So, could the solution really be that facetious 60's suggestion to "eat the rich"? That might stop them (I mean us, the privileged) from cannibalizing the rest of the planet...
Sorry about the cross-posting, but just wanted to share a bit of news here:
Well folks, it looks like some kind of a deal has been agreed to. AP is reporting that a "landmark deal" has been approved:
"Climate conference approves landmark deal"
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AF_CLIMATE_CONFERENCE?SITE=WABEL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
or
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AF_CLIMATE_CONFERENCE
Here are the three key aspects of this deal, as I understand it as of now:
(1) The Kyoto Protocol would be extended by another five years beyond 2012.
(2) Negotiations for another binding treaty would start, that would include ALL countries and impose commitments on ALL the countries. This new treaty would come into effect by 2020, at the latest.
(3) [Quote] The deal also set up the bodies that will collect, govern and distribute tens of billions of dollars a year for poor countries. Other documents in the package lay out rules for monitoring and verifying emissions reductions, protecting forests, transferring clean technologies to developing countries and scores of technical issues. [End quote]
At first glance, I have to say that this is better than what I feared might come out of Durban. The US is not happy, but according to Todd Stern, the U.S. climate negotiator, "the package captured important advances that would be undone if it is rejected."
Looks like the EU's pressure tactics to bring about a binding treaty that would impose commitments on all the countries seems to have worked - but with the compromise that the developing countries would still have a few years to get their house in order.
I really do not want to give in to cynicism at this point. Even if the entire talks had collapsed without any agreement, I was determined not to give in to cynicism. The responsibility of ordinary people to take charge of the situation still remains until we "get it done". But right now, my feeling is that things could have been worse. I'll wait for more details to come out.
The Guardian also reports "Climate deal salvaged after marathon talks in Durban"
http://gu.com/p/342tf
The ***reality*** is that the Durban meeting was where negotiations were held among competing self-interests of so many parties in the face of a common threat. The outcome could have been far worse. The whole thing could have been junked, with no treaty whatsoever. Right now there is an extension of the Kyoto Protocol and a "road map" for the next treaty, to be decided by 2015, and to be implemented no later than 2020.
Some here do not like to deal with ***reality***. I know for a fact that this outcome at Durban is not enough to avert disaster. But I think it could have been worse. It is now up to ordinary people everywhere to force the negotiations in the next year or so to move towards a serious international treaty. Those who do not care about treaties can pursue other avenues if they think they have something better. They are also free to imagine and pretend that they are the only ones who know how dangerous the whole thing is.
@ "(1) The Kyoto Protocol would be extended by another five years beyond 2012. "....... So?__ A little humor is always good for the soul.
(2) Negotiations for another binding treaty would start, that would include ALL countries and impose commitments on ALL the countries. This new treaty would come into effect by 2020, at the latest.....,,, NOPE!! 2015 is too late to reverse runaway global warming,,,, 2020 is a bad joke.
Talk is cheap and that is what has happened at this latest of four climate conferences,,,TALK... And it isn't just Arfrica which is doomed, so will all of the other world continent's populations and the Islanders be doomed.
And the good news is.... Ta-ta-taaaa..ta-taaa.
(1) ... We do not have to be concerned about the the millions of cancer cases which will be caused by the Fukushima disaster.
(2) ... We do not have to be concerned about acidification of the ocean waters' and the dying coral reefs and phytoplankton from burning coal.
(3) ... We do not have to be concerned about the coming world wide depression.
(4) ... We do have to be concerned about any bird flu or other killing pandemics.
(5) ... And we most definently will not have to be further concerned about an over populated world.
So let us all have a very Merry Christmas and have lots of fun... Shit! __ Tell that one to the 70% of the world populations who don't have any decent meals, clean water or fair health care and education benefits.
From the BBC - in Durban:
"Michael Jacobs, visiting professor at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment in London, said the agreement could bring real changes.
"The agreement here has not in itself taken us off the 4C path we are on," he said.
"But by forcing countries for the first time to admit that their current policies are inadequate and must be strengthened by 2015, it has snatched 2C from the jaws of impossibility.
"At the same time it has re-established the principle that climate change should be tackled through international law, not national, voluntarism."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16124670
---------------------
That's a more succinct quote, Michael Desautels, that describes this outcome, though details are still to emerge. So many people here point out, rightly, that the Kyoto Protocol was inadequate by itself. But, they walk right past the FACT that the USA has been unwilling to take EVEN this most inadequate of steps. And other countries like Canada that had committed to this most modest of targets are defaulting big time. But here's a "Fact Check on Kyoto Distortions" by Canada's Green Party Leader, Elizabeth May:
www.elizabethmay.ca/in-the-news/fact-check-on-kyoto-distortions/
I know there'll be a lot of negative comments here tomorrow. Just as there were cynical comments following the Obama administration's decision to "delay" a decision on the Keystone pipeline. Each of these developments, by itself, is NOT enough to avoid danger. But each of these things are necessary, unfortunately. Unless someone has a magic bullet that would get it all done in one go, that is.
There is much work for ordinary people to do in the coming days - to get out in the streets, to put pressure on their governments, or to even form the governments, to make sure that serious action would be taken to avert disaster. But for today, I'll try to look at the brighter side. If that is not going to be any better or any worse than a cynical comment, why bother with cynicism? On the other hand, I think it's better to acknowledge that the whole international framework to take action was at risk of collapsing and that has been avoided for now. And young people are waking up and getting involved. So the future can still be saved despite today's inadequacies and imperfections.
Disappointment is one thing. Cynicism is another. Some here may try to convince others that their cynicism is the best attitude and position to save the world, since it does not have to deal with reality. But those who want to CHANGE the reality need to start from acknowledging the reality, IMO. And reality involves governments, corporations and real people - not just a mindless parroting of scientific facts and forecasts, especially when these facts and warnings have not even adequately reached a large section of the population in the rich countries.
I was just reading some Wendell Berry last night, with Foreword by Herman Daly, environmental economist.
http://erb.kingdomnow.org/featured-what-matters-by-wendell-berry-vol-3-32/
Berry reminds us that we have delegated an awful lot to higher powers, be they governments, institutions or NGO's, and that the individual household must take active part in true sustainable economy, which means being responsible, and, if I may insert a quote I am increasingly fond of: "Nature bats Last."
Between that and Naomi Klein's piece for "The Nation", I'm off to the coffee shop to re-read "Unto This Last" by John Ruskin, written in 1860.
This is undoubtedly the finest treatise on economics I have personally read. Ruskin was, like Wendell Berry, not a professional economist, rather an architectural critic, like James Kunstler. Naomi Klein is also not an economist.
I am reminded, in thinking of these four powerful thinkers, that 'a good mind is a good mind, is a good mind,' and that Einstein's adage about not being able to solve problems through the conventional thinking that got us into the fix in the first place applies in spades here.
The human being's group size is about a hundred. Obviously we are tribal in nature and instinct. Obviously large governments and institutions are inventions to cope with the super organisms many of us are now a part of.
It's tricky.
Mike
====
Berry reminds us that we have delegated an awful lot to higher powers, be they governments, institutions or NGO's, and that the individual household must take active part in true sustainable economy, which means being responsible.
This is something I often feel is not understood even by the folk who post here. The lack of understanding manifests as a sort of "magical liberalism" in which all problems are easily solved by handwaved incantation, no actual work required.
The human being's group size is about a hundred. Obviously we are tribal in nature and instinct. Obviously large governments and institutions are inventions to cope with the super organisms many of us are now a part of.
I'd suggest that the large govts etc are actually designed to allow predators to prey on us more easily and with less danger.
We're certainly small-group oriented, but mostly because small groups are safe groups: if everyone knows everyone else, it's easy to detect and eliminate the truly dangerous individuals when natural randomness produces them, as it always does.
But we now have tools to augment our limited-capacity memories. Which means that we can at least in theory create safe groups of arbitrary size. How lovely it would be, to be able to travel and feel confident that the people we meet are all well-meaning and mentally healthy, no?
A lot of talk here too.. The FACT is,, burnng coal to produce electrical power has not decreased since the Kyoto accord, it has increased world wide by more than 10% and is projected it will rise by 35% by 2020.
Cynicism woudl not be necessary if governments had adopted truly bindings legal agreements to redcue Co2 output... Another FACT is we can do all we can individually to reduce our carbon outputs and that woul not suffice to prevent the runaway global warming which will most likely occur by 2020 or sooner, very possibly by 2015.
So we can TALK about it till doomsday, but talk won't alter what is a certainty. Serious action now by governments, especially by the United States government is absolutly necessary to prevent (*runaway*) global warming.
Runaway meant exactly that. When the feedback loops to global warming have trggered there will be no turning back and starting over, ther will be nothing at all anyone will be able to do to turn it around and reverse it. That is not being cynical either, it's how it is... Anyone who says otherwise is delusional or ignoring, or denying the truth and the FACTS. Anyone here who doesn't get it?
Some here remind wme of the useless words spoken at the do-noting climate conferences by the government's delegates... A lot of TALK with fancy BUZZ words that mean nothing, just yakking... We need immediate action to prevent a runaway global warming and we are very short of time
Yes, WayneWR, I agree that "We need immediate action to prevent a runaway global warming and we are very short of time." So you do all YOU can do and I will do all **I** can do. And this "all I can do" also includes talking to the people I know and that I come across. Do you have a better idea?
Do you know the carbon footprint of a cheeseburger? Of an escalator running in a mall? Rows and rows of freezers left open at supermarkets for the "convenience" of unthinking morons? Of an SUV driven 100 miles? Of an RV driven for just a few days? Do you know the carbon footprint of a Disney World? Disneyland? Do you know the carbon footprint of Las Vegas? Do you know the carbon footprint of a patio heater? Do you know the carbon footprint of regular meat consumption? Do you know the carbon footprint of the Houston Astrodome for operating just 4 hours? Do you know the carbon footprint of an ice rink? Do you know how many ice rinks there are in the USA and Canada and how much energy is required to operate them, even when it is damn hot outside, just so people can play or watch the stupid game ice hockey? Do you know how much fuel is burned for mowing lawns in houses and golf courses? Can you deny that these are all part of the American way of life that is threatening the whole world?
Forget coal burning increasing worldwide. The USA gets about 45% of its electricity from coal power plants. Have you understood the implications of shutting down all of it immediately? Why should China shut down its coal power plants BEFORE the USA has even agreed to doing its part? It is suicidal, I know. But WHO made it so?
Do you know how much gasoline it takes to produce 1 ton of CO2? Let me tell you, WayneWR: it takes only about 112 gallons of gasoline to produce 1 ton of CO2.
Do you know how long it takes for a tree to absorb 1 ton of CO2? Let me tell you again: for a freshly planted tree, from 25 years up to a 100 years, depending on the tree and the location. For a tree that is already about 25 years old, more than 5 years - again for some types of trees only. How many trees have been cut down in the Amazon region just so people can eat beef? Who is most responsible for literally cutting down nature's means of maintaining the atmospheric carbon balance?
Have YOU done anything to really look at these numbers, WayneWR? Have YOU done anything to stop them? Boycott them? Tell others to stop and boycott them? Or ban them? Have YOU done any of these? For your information, I know what these numbers mean. I have stopped these (or never consumed much of any of these to begin with) and I have been actively telling people that I know and that I come across about the need to stop using or consuming these, for years and years. I tell people, especially youngsters, when I get the chance, about what's involved in their consumption. That is why I understand the need for a legally binding international treaty. I do not have the power to change the behavior of the BIGGEST CRIMINAL NATION on my own. So I look for an international treaty. But what can I do if the BIGGEST CRIMINAL NATION refuses to face up to its responsibility and refuses to reduce its crime rate? And this criminal nation is actually made of individuals who are part of the ongoing destruction. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE, WayneWR, to stop this insanity?
Why are you lecturing me ALYCON~? Did I pull one of your chains? __ I am aware of the things you stated.. We use solar and a wind generator for backup power and solar to heat water. .We don't pay anything for electricity and we don't go to What a Burger, Big Mac or McDonalds... We are very caureful of our vehicle use and have a vehicle that averages 38 mpg. We are not going to buy a $43,000 dollar Volt either, which is actually a government backed joke.
My complaint is and always has been the coal fired power plants world wide are producing the dirtiest and near most Co2 and have been for many years world wide and it is getting far worse every year.and our government should have backed clean energy instead of backng the coal and nuclear industy and by now those 1,200+ coal fired power plants could have been mostly shut down and we would have led the way to clean energy use.
And the do nothing climate conferences have been a load of bullshit talk. So get off of my butt ~Alycon~ because you don't know what I have done or what I do. Ya got that?
I have spent near a quarter of my life during the past 10 years lecturing to audiences, writing printing and handing out more than 400,000 two page articles about the danger of burning coal and the threat of the (*Arctic's releasing methane*)... And I intend to continue that in addition to annoying people here by bringing it up every chance I get because there is no other issue of such importance for all life on Earth an I hope to make others who are not aware,,, aware... Maybe it will help,, maybe not?
All right, WayneWR. First of all, a big "Thank you" from my side for doing all that you have been doing. I mean that, really.
The reason I went on that rant was because of my disagreement with you on the issue of an international treaty. Simply put, you seem to think that a treaty is not needed. Fine, so you do what you have to do to bring about the kind of change that is needed.
I have explained my rationale elsewhere, before, for why I think a binding international treaty is essential and why the biggest impediment to action is the USA. You have only grudgingly admitted that the US could be a big problem. I can pull up your old posts to substantiate my point. But it's not important.
You have never accepted the rationale of historical responsibility. You even agreed with someone that per capita emissions don't matter!!!!!!!! And yet, elsewhere, you claim to agree with Naomi Klein's position on action on climate change. But you seem incapable of seeing that what I have been saying here is pretty much the same thing.
I want to balance "urgency" with "equity". You want only "urgency", while equity be damned! And you cannot bring yourself to say openly that the USA, as the biggest climate criminal, is agreeing to neither urgency, nor equity.
All you have been doing is to repeat your warnings about Arctic methane, which I have NOT once argued against. And attacking these talks regarding a treaty. But when it comes to specific proposals to take action, you are short on specifics and long on warnings.
I have long since stopped engaging with climate change deniers. I think the time has now come for me to stop arguing on the need for an international treaty, and focus on what ordinary individuals can do to take action - collectively and individually. I agree that we are running out of time.
I have NEVER said or implied that we don't need an internationl treaty with bindng legal terms for every country to reduce Co2 emmissions... That was exactly what we did need long ago and yesterday and start doing it NOW.
I have said it has never been done and waiting until 2020 is way to late. And don't hold your breath waiting for it to ever happen anyway... Durban was our last chance and it ended a with failure... And I primarily blame our government.
@ ("You have never accepted the rationale of historical responsibility. You even agreed with someone that per capita emissions don't matter!!!!!!!! .").... I don't know what you are talking about,,, I may agree with much of what some have posted but not all of their opinions... I agree with most of what you say, but not all of it... We cannot write a book here posting comments and often misunderstanding occur. We aren't sitting at a table discussing the issue and explain exactly what we mean if a question arises.... Anyway yor rant directed to me was uncalled for... Peace.
I appreciate the discussion on this thread but would be interested in asking WayneWR and Alcyon on the idea of getting neighbors and friends to unite and push for expanding public transportation and bus routes. I find it better to ride a bus and train for two reasons:
1. One can stop feeling "guilty" about being another "polluter" even though traveling to work.
2. One can avoid rude drivers on the highway and save his or her own health as well as the health of this planet.
Hi JenniferBedingfield, public transportation should logically form the main mode of transportation in a sustainable system, with private cars only used as a minimal supplement. Like all major changes, this one is not going to be easy because of large sums of money involved - both for capital and for operating expenses. Unless the city or the region has a large enough population, it would be hard to even come up with a business case without involving some subsidies from tax money. However, that is partly so only because of the tax subsidies, both direct and indirect, that currently goes to the corporations. For one thing, if oil companies were to maintain their own military to secure and insure supplies from elsewhere, they would obviously be passing on the cost to the consumers, so gas should be costing a helluva lot more - and that should make investment in public transportation much more of a no-brainer.
This is one reason why it is critical to cut military expenditure by a huge percentage. This is also one reason why I have felt Ron Paul's ideas could have unintended benefits, although I am not here to open up another distracting line of debate. Ralph Nader says pretty much the same thing too. Rolling back the empire would also involve making the functioning of the US Fed more transparent. The US Fed and the military and the empire are all inter-related. The Fed prints fiat money, which the US dumps on other countries to buy up their petroleum, and uses the military if they start getting other ideas about what form of payment they would prefer (e.g., Iraq and Libya, with Iran, Venezuela to come). Without this structure, importing petroleum in such quantities would be simply impossible, once again making public transportation a no-brainer.
For now, when it actually comes to getting people involved, one way to initiate the conversation is through a blog on local issues and by making use of any and all public forums available to push our case. With some luck, if you happen to convince one or a few of the local elected officials or representatives on the need for transit (or the expansion of an existing, inadequate system), that could help as well. Be prepared to go down in history as one of the unknown and unsung heroes, but with the knowledge that you did your best to move society from insanity towards sanity. You could also look for successful case studies elsewhere and maybe try to link up with activists there who made it possible. Just some random thoughts.
Alcyon, I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. As a matter of fact, I was part of a group of neighbors along with other people in not too distant neighborhoods who teamed up to extend the busing route to at least a few more places out here in the St Louis suburbs. It took months of planning and preparing to stand up to rude and snotty local pols who are already opposed to fixing our already languishing metro all the while having sweet and cozy talks with their Big Auto/Oil cronies. Some of my local pols have admitted to "pressure" from the Washington pols but still refuse to put away their hostility. As for going down as unknown heroes, well, I am not so sure that even our heroes expected to go down as heroes as they concentrated on the means.
P.S.: Thank you for the feedback and pleased to see you again. I felt sad seeing you and Wayne fighting on the issue when both of you had great ideas. When I combine both yours and his ideas, I see a strong idea of action with strong heart ready to stand up to the Mammon.
JenniferBedingfield, this is a late reply. Anyway, I suspect that you are probably doing more than many people who post here. Unfortunately that is what it takes for getting something done for the larger public good. I wish you success, and truly hope that you have enough like-minded fellow citizen activists. That really helps when you're fighting this kind of a fight. Have you considered blogging on this matter?
As for my disagreements with WayneWR, some of them are serious disagreements despite overall agreement on the threat we are facing. The disagreements come from different starting points. I have written about it a few times recently:
I consider "equity" on a global basis as an important consideration even while focusing on the "urgency" of the matter, whereas many people in the western world would only focus on the "urgency" of action, and go right past the issue of "equity" as if it doesn't even matter, given the urgency and all.
But "equity" and "urgency" are both related. As an example, if people in the rich countries were to reduce their ecological and carbon footprints per capita closer to global average, that would have a HUGE impact on the total carbon emissions worldwide. Instead, a lot of people don't even want to consider per capita emissions as a valid criterion (and WayneWR has agreed with someone who said it doesn't count).
Other disagreements have to do with what would work best. I place great emphasis on "demand reduction" as the number one item on the agenda, whereas WayneWR thinks it would be impractical, since people may not agree to reduce their consumption, and so, building clean energy systems needs to be done on a massive scale, and urgently too! So don't feel sad about the disagreements :)
We have to speak what we think is important, after all.
Oh, it is never too late to give a great reply. To be fair, most posters on this site are probably a lot older than am I. That said, they might have done their part and given up angry that their efforts were crushed. I cannot guarantee that even with more citizens ready to unite that all will be successful; however, I refuse to give up either even though I may agree with Wayne that in some ways, it is too little too late.
As for the posters, I believe most of them are sincere and possibly even tried with the exception of a few who dramatize, pass off rude reactions, and even show possible weakness of hypocrisy through their posts. Thank you for your support and blessing.
As for blogging, I thought that I already do when I discuss on this site, Alternet, Rawstory, Mother Jones, etc... . Having put up with habitually rude posters on almost every forum, I am not so sure that I am prepared to set up my own blog. I even felt like taking a long vacation away from blogging for some months after getting sick and tired of seeing them turn into domestic violence abuse war zones just because of personal disagreements. There is a lot to say about all that and the need to train oneself to survive and stand up to verbal abuse. Disagreements and contentions I have no problems with so long as it does not get personal. I have run across a few posters in almost every forum who would make their disagreements personal and a subset of them making it a nasty habit of trying to split hairs. What they gain out of this or why they choose to do so is unknown. I realize that I too have a history of having done it in my earlier days of posting on the forums but owned up to my mistakes and corrected them.
Like you, I will continue to speak out but will avoid conversations with trolls, rude and snotty jocks, and bullies. Luckily, I have very few such posters on my "ignore" list compared to other forums. I appreciate your ability to look beyond the stereotypes and make a passionate and yet compassionate case for keeping it equal while expeditious on your solutions. It's all good here. :)
Hi Jenny... I have fully explained in writing and words what burning coal is doing to our planet's atmosphere and oceans and have fully explained to hundreds, including my relatives, that the release of just 2% of the Arctic's methane in a thre to five year time period will cause (runaway), unforgivable, unstoppable global warming.
They don't care a hour later and don't wish to hear it again... No one who have the power wants to fix it.
Public transportaion worked perfectly during and before WW2... Try to get our governments to support it now and that is a trick... In Philadelphia it has always worked well,,, until you hit the surrouding suburbs... In Tucson, AZ, they have big busses,, lots of them and they run empty most of the time... It is very unprofitable and a big drain on the city budget, but very necessary for a minority.. .. Just two examples.
When things are going well economically, we can afford to take cre of the minority, the downtrodden and elderly. When things start to turn to shit economically, that's a different story. It's always been that way in every society... Money rules.
In addition on the public transportation issue,, us liberal minded have insured all buses must have handicap access,, which is very costly and a great deal of expensive pre-cost and continual maintenece. .. For every good argument there is a flip side to the coin.
There is only ONE issue that we humans should be really concered about at the present time,,, that's (*the Arctic methane threat*),,, because it is an incomng asteroid the size of Vermont and it will hit in the near future... It will eventually kill all life on Earth, except for some bacteria and dee sea creatures perhaps.
We have about eight to ten more years, maybe less, before runaway global warming begins... Then the party will be over... It's not my idea.
Wayne, you have my sympathy as I understand what it is like to have to deal with ignoramouses when it comes to trying to get them to understand let alone follow up on global warming. I do not know what the deal is other than their ill-conditioned fear that when it comes to generating electricity, one must somehow pick between the lesser of the evils, coal or nuclear. Human-kind may eventually pay for its collective arrogance. In fact, human-kind may very well rue the countless times creative solutions that could have been environmentally friendly were crushed by the corporate interests. As for the costs of providing the elderly and the handicapped on buses and trains, I have heard the pro-auto clowns rail on it but I turn that around by telling them to look at the hidden costs of subsidizing Big Auto/Oil, rising road maintenance costs, and health care costs associated with traffic jams and aggressive driving. I cannot expect to convince most of them; however, I suggest that we not give up on our efforts, both in action and in writing/speaking.
P.S.: I know Alcyon very well on this site and I think that he is trying to help you as well. Both of you speak well so I feel kind of sad to see both of you fighting.
The advent of the automobile changed it all.. Prior to the mid 1900s, people mostly lived in cities, farmers lived in the country. People stayed in the city they were born in and most never left the city, except during a war when the young men left.
Farmers stayed on the farm, they needed little from stores. If they needed any store bought things, saddle wax, a shovel, axe, coffee,, sugar, salt, they rode their horse, mule, or a wagon, or a buggy to town or church... It was commo to only go to town on a Saturday after milking the cows... It was bath day... Children walked to school,, and they learned how to read and write, add and subtract.
The aurtmobile changed it all... Henry Ford made autos affordable for the common man, he also paid good wages so his workers could buy his model Ts... Other companies, Olds, Dodge, Studebaker, Reo, White, etc followed suit... Roads began to be greatly improved and over time,, many people left the cities and now here we are today.. Screwed.