February, 17 2010, 01:11pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Andy Baker, Dushanbe, abaker@oxfam.org.uk, +992 91 898 56 20
Elena Akhmedova, Dushanbe, eakhmedova@oxfam.org.uk, +992 98 526 86 50
Yulia Yevtushok, Moscow, yyevtushok@oxfam.org.uk, +74992464944
Jennifer Abrahamson, UK, jabrahamson@oxfam.org.uk, +44(0)7810814980
Climate Change and Water Shortages Closing in on Tajikistan and Central Asia
New Oxfam report says retreating glaciers and more extreme weather could dangerously erode food security, livelihoods and even regional stability by 2050
WASHINGTON
The people of Tajikistan, many already feeling the
strains of climate change, will be increasingly afflicted over the next
40 years unless immediate action is taken to mitigate the effects,
according to a new report released today by Oxfam.
The report, Reaching Tipping Point? Climate Change and Poverty in Tajikistan,
says that the country's glaciers - mainly found in the Pamir Mountains
that make up part of the Trans-Himalayan range - are retreating and
could lead to greater water shortages and disputes in the wider region
in the future.
The painful blow of climate change has been sharply felt in rural
areas of Tajikistan in recent years where 1.4 million people are
already food insecure. Last summer's good rains brought some relief to
rural communities across Tajikistan that had previously suffered from
three consecutive years of drought, failed harvests and one of the
harshest winters on record. But the long-term trends are clear - and
ominous.
"It is indisputable that glaciers in Tajikistan are retreating. It
is also indisputable that if glaciers continue to retreat, and the
country experiences more extreme weather, countless people will be
dealt an even harder blow. Nearly one and a half million people are
already food insecure and that figure will likely rise if climate
change is not addressed. There could even be a dangerous ripple effect
across Central Asia, with countries throughout the region potentially
wrestling over dwindling water resources in coming decades," said Andy
Baker, Oxfam Tajikistan's Country Director.
Tajikistan's plight highlights the international injustice of
climate change, as it is one of the countries least responsible for the
greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change. This
mountainous, poverty-stricken, Central Asian country ranks 109th in the
world for all greenhouse gas emissions, 129th in emissions per capita,
and its people emit less than one tonne of carbon dioxide per head per
year as compared to nearly 20 tonnes by North Americans.
Some key data disclosed in the report:
- There has been a rise by 1.0-1.2 degrees C in parts of the country over the past 60 years
- The number of days per year the temperature has reached 40 degrees C has increased
- Droughts will likely be more intense and frequent
in the future; in 2008 Tajikistan suffered one of its worst droughts on
record while the winter of 2008 saw temperatures of minus 20 degrees C
for more than a month, causing serious crop loss - According to cited scientists, 20 percent of the country's glaciers have retreated and up to 30 percent more are likely to retreat or disappear by 2050
- Fedchenko Glacier, the country's largest, has melted at a rate of 16-20 metres per year
- The consequences of climate change could overstretch many countries' adaptive capacity in the region, contributing to political destabilization and triggering migration
The report is based on interviews conducted in the Vose, Fakhor, and
Temurmalik rural areas of the Khatlon region bordering Afghanistan in
the country's south. Oxfam helps poor farming communities cope with
increasingly frequent droughts, flooding and other disasters throughout
Khatlon, known as Tajikistan's 'bread basket' during Soviet times.
Additional interviews were conducted in the Ferghana Valley
agricultural areas of Spitamen and Ganchi in the Sugd region of
northern Tajikistan. Seventy percent of the Tajik population live in
agricultural areas - there are very few other means to a livelihood
outside the capital - the majority in Khatlon and Sugd.
Those interviewed spoke of the unusual hardships they have faced in
recent years. Many farmers experienced widespread crop loss caused
both by searing summers and bitter cold in the winter. During the
drought of 2008, grain harvest totals were down between 30-40 percent
compared to the previous year.
Many farming communities in Tajikistan largely rely on
over-stretched irrigation systems and on rainfall to cultivate and reap
a harvest, and are so poor that they are forced send male family
members to Russia to work as labourers to help support the family. Any
shocks - like repeated droughts or flooding caused by climate change -
can push families over the edge. A local Oxfam partner explained to
the report's author that previously droughts lasted for one year only,
but now they can last for four or five consecutive years. As one
farmer explained, "When rain starts, it's good, it's like humanitarian
aid."
Andy Baker added:
"Droughts are increasing and temperatures are rising. Harvests are
failing for lack of water. Entire swathes of the rural population of
Tajikistan have already suffered greatly in recent years, barely able
to feed their families. Imagine what their situation will be in 2050
if adaptation measures are not put into place soon and if global green
house gas emissions are not adequately reined in. It could be
calamitous."
The Report - Oxfam's Key Recommendations:
- At a community level: improve access to water and methods of food storage and preservation. Provide more support and training in agriculture. Scale up better insulation of houses, use of energy efficient stoves, biogas, solar power and use of passive solar greenhouses
- At a national level: support farmers to adapt
and have more resilient livelihood strategies; integrate climate change
responses across government departments and into national planning;
strengthen disaster risk reduction programmes; implement research
programmes on climate change and its impacts - At regional and international level: negotiations must get straight back on track to achieve a fair, ambitious, and binding deal to tackle climate change,
which is now overdue. To deliver their fair share of global efforts,
rich countries would need to provide $200 billion per year by 2020 to
help developing countries adapt and reduce their own emissions.
They need to commit to reduce their own emissions with at least 40%
below 1990 levels by 2020 to have a decent chance to keep global
warming below 2degC. In Central Asia, institutions for regional
co-operation must be strengthened, in particular to monitor and manage
water resources in the light of glacial melt, higher temperatures and
increases in water scarcity.
Read more
Read the report: Reaching Tipping Point? Climate Change and Poverty in Tajikistan
On the frontlines of climate change: Tajikstan - Jennifer Abrahamson blogs
Join the global call for a fair, ambitious and binding climate deal.
Oxfam International is a global movement of people who are fighting inequality to end poverty and injustice. We are working across regions in about 70 countries, with thousands of partners, and allies, supporting communities to build better lives for themselves, grow resilience and protect lives and livelihoods also in times of crisis.
LATEST NEWS
Supreme Court Urged to 'Rule Quickly' After Trump Immunity Arguments
"It'd be a travesty for justices to delay matters further," said one legal expert.
Apr 25, 2024
After about three hours of oral arguments Thursday on former President Donald Trump's immunity claims, legal experts and democracy defenders urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule swiftly, with just over six months until the November election.
Trump—the presumptive Republican candidate to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden, despite his 88 felony charges in four ongoing criminal cases—is arguing that presidential immunity should protect him from federal charges for trying to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden, which culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Justices across the ideological spectrum didn't seem inclined to support Trump's broad immunity claims—which critics have said "reflect a misreading of constitutional text and history as well as this court's precedent." However, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) shared examples of what it would mean if they did.
"Trump could sell pardons, ambassadorships, and other official benefits to his wealthy donors, members of his clubs, or cronies who helped him commit other crimes," CREW warned. "Trump could sell nuclear codes and government secrets to help pay back crippling debts."
"But this isn't just about what Donald Trump could do. It's really about how total immunity for the president would threaten our democratic system of checks and balances," the group continued. "The president could order the military to assassinate activists, political opponents, members of Congress, or even Supreme Court justices, so long as he claimed it related to some official act."
After warning that a president could also order the occupation or closure of the Capitol or high court to prevent actions against him, CREW concluded that "the Supreme Court never should have taken this appeal up in the first place. They should rule quickly and shut these ludicrous claims down for good."
The organization was far from alone in demanding a quick decision from the nation's highest court.
"In the name of accountability, the court must not delay its decision," the Brennan Center for Justice said Thursday evening. "The Supreme Court's time is up. It needs to let the prosecution move forward. The court decided Bush v. Gore in three days—it should act with similar alacrity in deciding Trump v. U.S."
In Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the 2000 election, the high court issued a related stay on December 9, heard oral arguments on December 11, and issued a final decision on December 12.
On Thursday, the arguments "got away from the central question: Is a former president immune from criminal prosecution if he tried to overthrow a presidential election, using private means and the power of his office to do so?" the Brennan Center noted. "The answer is simple: No."
"It is not an 'official act' to try to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power or the Constitution, even if you conspire with other government officials to do it or use the Oval Office phone," the center said. "Trump's attorney was pushing the court to come up with a sea change in the law. That's unnecessary and a delay tactic that will hurt the pursuit of justice in this case."
In a departure from previous claims, Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, "appeared to agree with Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, that there are some allegations in the indictment that do not involve 'official acts' of the president," NBC Newsreported, noting questions from liberal Justice Elena Kagan and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee.
Barrett summarized various allegations from the indictment and in three cases—involving dishonest election claims, false allegations of fraud, and fake electors—Sauer conceded that Trump's alleged conduct sounded private, suggesting that a more narrow case against the ex-president that excluded any potential official acts could proceed.
Due to Trump attorney's concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there's now a very clear path for DOJ's case to go forward.\n\nIt'd be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further.\n\nJustice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.\u2b07\ufe0f— (@)
According to NBC:
Matthew Seligman, a lawyer and a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School who filed a brief backing prosecutors, said Sauer's concessions highlight that Trump is "not immune for the vast majority of the conduct alleged in the indictment."
Ultimately, he said, the case will go to trial "absent some external intervention—like Trump ordering [the Justice Department] to drop the charges" after having won the election.
At the same time, Sauer's backtracking might have little consequence from an electoral perspective. Further delay in a trial, which Sauer is close to achieving, is a form of victory in itself.
Slate's Mark Joseph Stern pointed out that when Barrett similarly questioned Michael Dreeben, the U.S. Department of Justice lawyer arguing the case for Smith, it seemed like they "were trying to work out some compromise wherein the trial court could distinguish between official and unofficial acts, then instruct the jury not to impose criminal liability on the former."
"It was fascinating to watch Barrett nodding along as Dreeben pitched a compromise that would largely preserve Smith's January 6 prosecution but limit what the jury could hear, or at least consider," Stern added. "That, though, would take months to suss out in the trial court. More delays!"
Stern and other experts signaled that the decision likely comes down to Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, with the three liberals seemingly supporting the prosecution of Trump and the other four conservatives suggesting it is unconstitutional.
People for the American Way president Svante Myrick said in a statement that "today's argument brought both good and bad news. It was chilling to hear Donald Trump's lawyer say that staging a military coup could be considered part of a president's official duties."
"Thankfully, the majority of the court, including conservative justices, did not seem to buy that very broad Trump argument that a former president is absolutely immune from prosecution under any circumstances," Myrick added. "On the other hand, it's not clear that there is a majority on this court that will quickly reject the immunity arguments and let the case go forward in time for a trial before the election. That's a huge concern."
Trump was not at the Supreme Court on Thursday; he was at his trial in New York, where he faces 34 counts for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The are two other cases: a federal one for mishandling classified material and another in Georgia for interfering with the last presidential contest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Just the Beginning': 50+ Arrested for Blockading Citigroup Bank Over Climate Crimes
"Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet," said one Indigenous campaigner.
Apr 25, 2024
Twenty more demonstrators were arrested Thursday, the second day of Earth Week protests targeting Citigroup's Manhattan headquarters in what organizers called "the beginning of a wave of direct actions to take place over the summer targeting big banks for creating climate chaos that is killing our communities and our planet."
Protest organizers—who include Climate Defenders, New York Communities for Change, Planet over Profit, and Stop the Money Pipeline—said 53 activists were arrested over two days of demonstrations, which included blocking the entrance to Citigroup's headquarters, to "demand that the bank stop funding fossil fuels."
Organizers said this week's demonstrations "were just the beginning" of what they're calling a "Summer of Heat" targeting big banks for their role in the climate emergency and for "polluting our land, air, and water, and threatening the health of children, families, and our planet." Citigroup is the world's second-largest fossil fuel financier.
"We're holding Citi accountable for financing dirty fossil fuels from Canada to Latin America and beyond," said Chief Na'moks of the Wet'suwet'en Nation, one of several Indigenous leaders who took part in the action. "Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet."
Jonathan Westin, executive director of Climate Defenders, asserted that "Citigroup's racist funding of oil, coal, and gas is creating climate chaos that's devastating communities of color across the country."
"We're taking action to tell Citi that we won't put up with their environmental racism for one more day," Westin continued. "Our communities have reached the boiling point. Our children have asthma, our city's sky was orange, and our air polluted because of the climate crisis caused by Citi and Wall Street."
"We're going to keep organizing and taking direct action until Citi listens to us," he vowed.
Stop the Money Pipeline co-director Alec Connon said: "To have any chance of reigning in the climate crisis, we must stop investing in fossil fuel expansion. Yet, Citibank is pumping billions of dollars into new coal, oil, and gas projects."
"We're here to make it clear: If they're going to fund the companies disrupting our climate and our lives, we're going to disrupt their business," Connon added.
Activists have repeatedly targeted Citigroup in recent years as the megabank has pumped more than $300 billion into fossil fuel investments around the world since the Paris climate agreement.
According to the protest organizers:
Citi has provided $668 million in funding to Formosa Plastics between 2001-2021, which is trying to build a $9.4 billion plastics facility in a majority Black community in the heart of Cancer Alley in Louisiana.
Citigroup is also one of the biggest funders of state-run oil and gas companies in the Amazon basin, pumping in over $40 billion between 2016-2020, and a major backer of Petroperú, which has been involved in oil spills and Indigenous rights violations.
"From wildfires, heatwaves, and floods to deadly air pollution and mass drought, Citi's fossil fuel financing is killing us," said Alice Hu of New York Communities for Change. "We've sent polite petitions and had pleading meetings with bank representatives, but Citi refuses to stop pouring billions each year into coal, oil, and gas."
"That's why we're fighting for our lives now with the best tool we have left: mass, nonviolent disruptive civil disobedience," Hu added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
No Outside Probe, US Reiterates as Gazans Reportedly Buried Alive in Mass Grave
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself?" asked one incredulous reporter.
Apr 25, 2024
A Biden administration spokesperson once again brushed off calls for an independent investigation into how hundreds of Palestinians found in mass graves near Gaza hospitals died when asked Thursday about new reports that many of the victims were tortured, summarily executed—and in some cases, buried alive by Israeli invaders.
During a Thursday U.S. State Department press conference in Washington, D.C., a reporter noted Gaza officials' claim that mass grave victims "including children were tortured before being killed" and that "some even showed signs of being buried alive, along with other crimes against humanity."
"What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Noting calls by Palestinian officials and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk for an independent probe into mass graves, the reporter said that "this administration repeatedly said that it asks... the Israeli government to investigate itself."
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself and provide reports that you have previously said that you actually trust?" the reporter asked State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel. "What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Patel replied: "We continue to find these reports incredibly troubling. And that's why yesterday you saw the national security adviser for this to be thoroughly investigated."
While National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan on Wednesday called reports of mass grave atrocities "deeply disturbing" and said that "we want answers" from Israel, he did not call for an independent investigation.
When the reporter pressed Patel on the legitimacy of asking Israel to investigate itself, Patel said, "we believe that through a thorough investigation we can get some additional answers."
Thursday's exchange followed a similar back-and-forth on Tuesday between Patel and Said Arikat, a journalist for the Jerusalem-based
Palestinian news outlet al-Quds who asked about the mass graves.
At least 392 bodies—including numerous women and children—have been found in mass graves outside Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, southern Gaza, where Palestinian Civil Defense and other workers have been exhuming victims for nearly a week. Officials believe there are as many as 700 bodies in three separate mass graves.
Based on more recent exhumations, local Civil Defense chief Yamen Abu Sulaiman said during a Wednesday press conference that "we believe that the occupation buried alive at least 20 people at the Nasser Medical Complex."
"There are cases of field execution of some patients while undergoing surgeries and wearing surgical gowns," he stated, adding that some victims showed signs of torture and 10 bodies had medical tubes attached to them.
Gaza Civil Defense official Mohammed Mughier told reporters that "we need forensic examination" to definitively determine the causes of death for the 20 people believed to have been buried alive.
Previous reporting on the mass graves quoted rescue workers who said they found people who were apparently executed while their hands were bound, with some victims missing heads, skin, and internal organs.
Other mass graves have been found in Gaza, most notably on the grounds of al-Shifa Hospital, where Israeli forces last month committed what the Geneva-based Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor called "one of the largest massacres in Palestinian history."
It's also not the first time there have been reports of Israeli troops burying victims alive during the current war, in which Palestinian and international officials say Israeli forces have killed or wounded more than 122,000 Gazans, including at least 11,000 people who are missing and feared dead. Israeli forces attacking Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia last December reportedly bulldozed and buried alive dozens of injured patients and displaced people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular