Good news from Copenhagen: how a colossal failure opens new doors to reform

 Environment, world governance  No Responses »
Dec 212009
 
I have to admit that this time our politicians surprised me (which is something very difficult to do). Having spent last week in Copenhagen and last years following climate change negotiations I could have never expected that our politicians could have dared to craft such a disastrous non-existing deal. I just couldn’t even dream that they could be so bad.
Years and years of meetings and negotiations between more than 150 countries have been wasted and in the end US and China decided that the rest of the world can go to hell and decided to pull the hand-break. Copenhagen is an amazingly fabulous failure; a betrayal to the purpose our politicians are elected for.
This exercise of prepotence and dismissal from the US and China towards the rest of the world will have deadly impacts in the trust in international multilateral negotiations. I analyse this in a former post of mine.
But this colossal failure has the potential of bringing to the stage a major problem to which nobody wanted to pay attention to: the way negotiations take place are key to understand why the outcome has been nothing but a waste of time, resources and trust (link a l’article sobre trust I climate change). The UNFCCC is not the right institutional setting to deliver the appropriate decisions and provide its implementation and enforcement.
It was very sad to see that during the negotiations the “relevant” countries were negotiating among themselves bypassing the other countries –even the EU!- and even the UN, the facilitator of the whole thing, didn’t know what was going on.
The UNFCCC has lost all credibility as manager of international relations to fight climate change.
The role of the UNFCCC right now can be compared with the League of Nations during the years preceding the WWII, when Hitler was occupying Austria and Czecoslovaquia the other nations were wasting their time in the multilateral talks in the League of Nations. Menawhile, Hitler and Mussolini were fooling Chamberlain and Daladier in bilateral negotiations. This is why the European Union was created after WWII; as a result of the experience that integration works but cooperation clearly doesn’t. If we want the world to be able to face the threats of Climate Change it needs to integrate and that can only be done by creating global democratic and accountable institutions where the world interest is represented. To know more about the details go here.
Once again Copenhagen has demonstrated that the sum of the national interests is very far from delivering the world interest. It is hence vital that we build institutions that allow the world interest to be represented. A first step in this direction would be to constitute a “world parliament” in line with what the UNPA demands (link to Leinen’s declarations). The second step would require the reform of the world financial institutions (IMF and World Bank) so that they can levy taxes and democratically administer a budget aiming at reducing emissions. The third step would be the creation of a kind of a world government (replacing the security council) charged with the mission to deal with the crisis situations that climate change is causing.
Some environmentalists like Lester Brown argued that the problem is so immediate and huge that we don’t have time to reform the world institutions; we only have time to act! Well, the result of Copenhagen proves them wrong. These are the sad good news to be learnt from the Copenhagen failure.
Obama can’t save the world, neither can the EU nor China. The world can only be saved if we act together, and we can’t act together in the frame of UNFCCC. It is mandatory that UNFCCC is abandoned –it is no longer trusted big majority of the countries- and a new setting is created, a setting capable of providing democratic and accountable results. It is the time for world democracy! I know it is difficult to have world democracy stemming from non democratic countries but no matter how imperfect it can be, it won’t deliver less than the last 2 years of negotiations of UNFCCC.
UNFCCC is deadI have to admit that this time our politicians surprised me (which is something very difficult to do). Having spent last week in Copenhagen and last years following climate change negotiations I could have never expected that our politicians could have dared to craft such a disastrous non-existing deal. I just couldn’t even dream that they could be so bad.
Years and years of meetings and negotiations between more than 150 countries have been wasted and in the end US and China decided that the rest of the world can go to hell and decided to pull the hand-break. Copenhagen is an amazingly fabulous failure; a betrayal to the purpose our politicians are elected for.
This exercise of prepotence and dismissal from the US and China towards the rest of the world will have deadly impacts in the trust in international multilateral negotiations. I analyse this in a former post of mine.
But this colossal failure has the potential of bringing to the stage a major problem to which nobody wanted to pay attention to: the way negotiations take place are key to understand why the outcome has been nothing but a waste of time, resources and trust. The UNFCCC is not the right institutional setting to deliver the appropriate decisions and provide its implementation and enforcement.
It was very sad to see that during the negotiations the “relevant” countries were negotiating among themselves bypassing the other countries –even the EU!- and even the UN, the facilitator of the whole thing, didn’t know what was going on.

The UNFCCC has lost all credibility as manager of international relations to fight climate change.

The role of the UNFCCC right now can be compared with the League of Nations during the years preceding the World War II, when Hitler was occupying Austria and Czecoslovaquia the other nations were wasting their time in the multilateral talks in the League of Nations. Menawhile, Hitler and Mussolini were fooling Chamberlain and Daladier in bilateral negotiations. This is why the European Union was created after WWII; as a result of the experience that integration works but cooperation clearly doesn’t. If we want the world to be able to face the threats of Climate Change it needs to integrate and that can only be done by creating global democratic and accountable institutions where the world interest is represented. To know more about the details go here.
Once again Copenhagen has demonstrated that the sum of the national interests is very far from delivering the world interest. It is hence vital that we build institutions that allow the world interest to be represented. A first step in this direction would be to constitute a “world parliament” in line with what the UNPA demands . The second step would require the reform of the world financial institutions (IMF and World Bank) so that they can levy taxes and democratically administer a budget aiming at reducing emissions. The third step would be the creation of a kind of a world government (replacing the security council) charged with the mission to deal with the crisis situations that climate change is causing.
Some environmentalists like Lester Brown argued that the problem is so immediate and huge that we don’t have time to reform the world institutions; we only have time to act! Well, the result of Copenhagen proves them wrong. These are the sad good news to be learnt from the Copenhagen failure.
Obama can’t save the world, neither can the EU nor China. The world can only be saved if we act together, and we can’t act together in the frame of UNFCCC. It is mandatory that UNFCCC is abandoned –it is no longer trusted big majority of the countries- and a new setting is created, a setting capable of providing democratic and accountable results. It is the time for world democracy! I know it is difficult to have world democracy stemming from a mix of democratic and non democratic countries but no matter how imperfect it can be, it won’t deliver less than the last 2 years of negotiations of UNFCCC.
 Posted by admin at 1:50  Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

Rewarded to destroy wealth? Recycling has higher social return than banking

 Economics, Environment  No Responses »
Dec 162009
 

Photo: Dave Ciplet

There are lots of new approaches about how economics should be reformed in order to allow prices to tell the truth, internalising future or environmental costs, integrating scarcity in the equation, new indicators of wealth, etc.  All these topics which might have looked revolutionary or idealist not too long ago are not provocative anymore for many.

However I run into a report about a new approach in looking at the value of work which struck me. A study by NEF in which they look at how much the different professions are paid in comparison to how much they contribute to society it concludes that whereas waste recycling workers they generate 12 pounds for every pound they are paid, bankers destroy 11 pounds worth of value for every pound in value they generate. Yet in our economic system those who destroy wealth are rewarded with huge salaries and those who create it receive minimum wages.

I love it when common sense competes with economics even though the former always loses…

Worth a read:

Waste recycling workers do a range of different jobs that relate to processing and preventing waste and promoting recycling. Carbon emissions are significantly reduced when goods are recycled instead of sending them to incineration or landfill. There is also a value in reusing goods, and we have included this in our model. Our model projects that for every £1 of value spent on wages, £12 of value will be generated.
High-earning investment bankers in the City of London are among the best remunerated people in the economy. But the earnings they command and the profits they make come at a huge cost because of the damaging social effects of the City of London’s financial activities. We found that rather than being ‘wealth creators’, these City bankers are being handsomely rewarded for bringing the global financial system to the brink of collapse. While collecting salaries of between £500,000 and £10 million, leading City bankers to destroy £7 of social value for every pound in value they generate.
Although the role of an advertising executive has high status, the impact of the industry has always been a point of controversy. It encourages high consumer spending and indebtedness. It can create insatiable aspirations, fuelling feelings of dissatisfaction, inadequacy and stress. In our economic model we estimate the share of social and environmental damage caused by overconsumption that is attributable to advertising. For a salary of between £50,000 and £12 million, top advertising executives destroy £11 of value for every pound in value they generate.

Waste recycling workers do a range of different jobs that relate to processing and preventing waste and promoting recycling. Carbon emissions are significantly reduced when goods are recycled instead of sending them to incineration or landfill. There is also a value in reusing goods, and we have included this in our model. Our model projects that for every £1 of value spent on wages, £12 of value will be generated.


High-earning investment bankers in the City of London are among the best remunerated people in the economy. But the earnings they command and the profits they make come at a huge cost because of the damaging social effects of the City of London’s financial activities. We found that rather than being ‘wealth creators’, these City bankers are being handsomely rewarded for bringing the global financial system to the brink of collapse. While collecting salaries of between £500,000 and £10 million, leading City bankers to destroy £7 of social value for every pound in value they generate.


Although the role of an advertising executive has high status, the impact of the industry has always been a point of controversy. It encourages high consumer spending and indebtedness. It can create insatiable aspirations, fuelling feelings of dissatisfaction, inadequacy and stress. In our economic model we estimate the share of social and environmental damage caused by overconsumption that is attributable to advertising. For a salary of between £50,000 and £12 million, top advertising executives destroy £11 of value for every pound in value they generate.

 Posted by admin at 1:00  Tagged with: , , , , ,

JM a Collonhagen

 Brainwashing, Europa catala, Viatges  No Responses »
Dec 122009
 

Tuvalu CollonhagenHa arribat l’hora de salvar el mon i cap a Copenhagen falta gent!
Copenhagen, ciutat grisa i freda; especialment recomanable pel mes de Desembre.

Nomes arribar salten als ulls propaganda de les empreses que mes contaminen en les que ens recorden que son mes verdes que les mongetes. Exxon, Coca-Cola, Nike i companyia ens salvaran a tots. Ja podem esperar asseguts.

Vinc a Copenhagen per a presentar un grup del que a Catalunya vindrien a ser els drapaires d’abans pero provinents de la India, Brasil, Argentina, Colombia, Egipte… la idea es que aquests recicladors vinguin a explicar als representants dels seus països i del mon mundial que algunes de les idees que aquests darrers ens proposen per a salvar el planeta potser no son tan bones. Concretament idees de bomber com ara els Mecanisme de Desenvolupament Net (CDM) en que les empreses del nord si volen reduir emissions l’unic que han de fer es pagar diners a una empresa d’un pais en desenvolupament per a que o emiteixi menys o faci les reformes necessaries per a reduir emissions i aixi l’empresa del nord pot continuar contaminant.
El sistema en si es una collonada perque al final no es redueixen emissions totals sino que simplement es mareja la perdiu i s’incentiva que alguns es facin rics fent d’intermediaris.
L’exemple que venim a demostrar es que els recicladors que han vingut amb nosaltres i que s’ocupen de la gran majoria del reciclatge als països en desenvolupament no tenen acces a aquests diners del nord que van a parar a projectes per construir abocadors o incineradores que no nomes son dolents pel medi ambient sino que els hi prenen la feina i els aboquen a la pobresa. Per a veure mes sobre aquest tema podeu visitar el blog que hem creat:
http://frontlineagainstclimatechange.inclusivecities.org/index.html

Jo, com a bon occidentalitzat occidental, soc ignorant del que passa a la resta del mon i observar la interaccio entre aquests recicladors de l’India i els de llationamerica em deixa bocabadat. Aixo de l’aprenentatge intercultural es un mon infinit.

A l’hora de sopar observo com alguns dels indis mengen amb les mans, fins i tot la sopa. I us preguntareu, com s’ho fa per menjar la sopa amb la ma? Doncs fent un agil moviment (que a mi em recorda la giragonsa de canell de la dansa flamenca) i ni una gota va fora. Flipo. En parlo amb l’unic d’ells que parla angles i ella m’explica que al menjar amb les mans la teca te un altre sabor, mes autentic. No sere jo qui li discuteixi ja que sempre he defensat que les gambes o les bones patates fregides estan mes bones quan es mengen amb els dits. Sigui com sigui, per a ells es una cosa tambe cultural i aixo dels coberts es veu que es percep com una intromissio occidental. Jo de moment continuare menjant la sopa amb cullera.

Una altra cosa que em sorpren dels indis son els rots. Al principi es una mica sorprenent que els rots es considerin al nivell de les estossegades; en qualsevol moment, independentment de llur solemnitat, es pot sentir un rot alt i clar, tan definit com desvergonyit. Pero de seguida un s’hi acostuma i no dire que els trobi a faltar pero almenys em pregunto perque a occident s’accepta que la gent estossegui o esternudi pero que una cosa tan natural i fisica com l’eruptar estigui mal vista…
Ara be, si obrim la porta als rots de seguida saltem als pets i la cosa es complica i comenca a fer pudor. Que cadascu faci el que vulgui.

Pero tornem al COP15, al gran xou de la democracia mundial, aqui es on en teoria s’ha de decidir el futur del planeta, el ser o no ser, el quo vadis, etc… Mes de 130 paisos es reuneixen per a negociar com s’ho faran per a posar-se d’acord per a emetre menys gasos. Facil a dir, gairebe impossible de dur a terme. Els països “desenvolupats” (menys del 20% de la poblacio mundial) porten 2 segles carregant-se el planeta i son responsables del 80% de les emissions, els països en desenvolupament volen ser com els països desenvolupats pero, ai las!, ho han de fer sense contaminar. Aixi doncs; tururut. L’altra opcio es que els països desenvolupats redueixin les seves emissions un 80% que a la practica significa viure com els països en desenvolupament. La tercera opcio, i suposo que l’unica viable, es que cambiem el sistema economic i els metodes de produccio per a decarbonitzar l’economia i que el creixement economic es basi en l’economia immaterial mes que en la material. Es la unica manera de reinventar el capitalisme sense petar. Sino, el sistema petara i del capitalisme pasarem a totalitarismes varis i escenaris de Mad Max amb algunes llacunes de llibertat racista i democratica defensada amb ungles i dents per llurs moradors. Un panorama prometedor.

Pero encara es pot salvar. Les negociacions han de durar dues setmanes i en teoria haurien de rubricar les negociacions que s’han vingut esdevenint desde fa uns anys. A la practica tot esta per fer i les estructures de negociacio esta clar que no son les adequades cosa que provoca que alguns països espavilats busquin d’altres vies; al segon dia de la trobada es filtra que Dinamarca, els EEUU i el Regne Unit han estat treballant un document en secret en que decideixen que els països desenvolupats limitaran llurs emissions pel 2050 molt per sobre del limit que atorguen als països en desenvolupament. Com es d’imaginar, tan per la forma com pel contingut els països en desenvolupament encapçalats per la Xina els envien a fregir esparrecs i comencen a treballar per la seva banda. Al tercer dia de negociacions el sentiment es de desolacio i frustracio, sort que queden 10 dies per intentar arreglar-ho. Mentrestant, a dins del congres es multipliquen els actes espontanis i hi ha moltes reaccions de rabia i desesperacio per part d’illes del Pacific que estan comencant a ser engolides pel mar i per part de delegacions africanes a qui el canvi climatic els hi esta transformant les pastures en deserts i per tant complicant molt supervivencia.

Jo en tot aixo soc nomes un observador pero l’estar present t’ajuda a prendre el “pols” a les negociacions. Aixo del “pols” vol dir entendre el grau de carrega emocional a l’ambient, imperceptible des de fora, i que es responsable de que es prenguin moltes decisions irracionals i/o il•lògiques (a vegades per a be, a vegades per a mal).

Aquests tipus d’esdeveniments creen les circumstancies perfectes per a les situacions surrealistes, n’enumero unes quantes:
-    Predicant amb l’exemple: L’esdeveniment per a salvar el medi ambient reunira 17000 animes a Copenhagen cosa que generara 40.500 tones de CO2, equivalents a les emissions de CO2 del Marroc per tot un any,
-    Sexe gratis: Amb un intent d’evitar que els delegats a les negociacions es desconcentressin i sabedor de que les nits d’aquests esdeveniments son llargues i les paga el contribuent l’alcalde de Copenhagen va decidir enviar una carta a tots els hotels demanant-los de ser sostenibles i no oferir prostitutes als hostes. La reaccio del sindicat del sexe a Copenhagen va ser d’oferir serveis gratis a qualsevol delegat que ho pugui acreditar. Aixo es marketing i no el que fa l’ajuntament!
-    Menjada de coco: avui en dia en que esta de moda ser ecologic i que tota la propaganda va dedicada a fer un rentat de cervell al ciutada per a que es cregui que un 4×4 pot ser ecologic resulta que els organitzadors de la conferencia faciliten als qui ho desitgin visites a una incineradora veina que venen com a verda i que no produeix CO2 ni res. Per a presentar una tecnologia que te una  eficiencia maxima d’un 20% com a solucio per salvar el planeta s’ha de nassos.

Els dies se succeeixen i la historia dels nostres recicladors interesa molt als periodistes d’arreu. Des de la CNN a Al-Jazeera passant per diaris com la Vanguardia i molts d’altres els hi fan entrevistes. L’aconseguir que gent que gairebe no ha anat a l’escola, que ha viscut en barraques i que s’ha sabut organitzar en cooperatives per a recollir, separar i vendre materials arribin a poder parlar amb els delegats de llurs països i que les seves reivindicacions arribin a tenir una repercussio tan gran es quelcom que m’omple d’emocio. Al final, al quart dia acaben atraient l’atencio dels responsables d’aprobar les metodologies de concessio de subvencions els quals se sorprenen del mal que alguns dels seus projectes estan fent a països en desenvolupament.

En una de les entrevistes que els hi fan un periodista danes els hi pregunta que es el que mes els hi sorpren de Copenhagen i la recicladora els hi engega: “el que em trenca el cor es veure la quantitat de coses utils que llencen i com malgasten el menjar. Al meu pais tot aixo es reaprofitaria i aqui ho llencen i ho acaben cremant. Em pensava que els europeus eren mes intel.ligents.” La periodista es queda de pedra i acte seguit em mira amb cara d’aprovacio.

Jo he de marxar de Copenhagen el divendres 11, al bell mig de les negociacions i abans dels actes multitudinaris com ara les manifestacions i d’altres. La Unio Europea s’acaba de posar d’acord per a posar diners i propostes sobre la taula. Clarament insuficients pero que haurien de servir per a salvar-s’hi la cara. Els EEUU intenten comprometre’s al minim i els de l’arxipelag de Tuvalu estan desesperats perque veuen que ja poden preparar les escafandres.
No se que en sortira de tot aquest xou pero posaria la ma al foc que l’acord sera de minims molt minims. Tot i aixo, crec que mes important que l’acord en si es que els països es posin d’acord per a treballar junts, que comencin a confiar els uns en els altres. Aixo es molt dificil en un marc tan multilateral i tan poc institucional pero es l’unica alternativa que tenim per a que la humanitat se’n pugui sortir d’aquesta.

Jo no les tinc totes pero suposo que l’unic que podem fer es creuar els dits i fer tanta pressio com poguem en el dia a dia, consumir responsablement, elegir politics de fiar i inteligents (combinacio dificil pero algun ha de quedar) i entendre que o ens salvem tots o no se salvara ningu.

Collonades? Potser no.

PS: Copio aqui un dels parlaments d’una de les recicladores de la India anomenada Baby Mohite traduit al castella, per a llegir-ne d’altres cliqueu aqui.
Las lluvias que se supone llegan en el mes de junio, han llegado en el mes de noviembre. El tiempo y las estaciones están cambiando.

Los países desarrollados contaminan el mundo mucho más que los países en desarrollo y han causado esto.

La gente pobre como nosotros, ayuda al medio ambiente, metiendo las manos en la basura y separando los residuos a fin de poderlos reciclar y tratarlos a través del compostaje.

Debido a que reciclamos, podemos reducir la dependencia de la extracción de recursos frescos – menos tala de árboles, menos minería, menos quema, lo que significa menos contaminación.

Ahora hay varias empresas de países desarrollados que vienen y quieren tomar el control de todos los residuos en nuestros países, lo que significa que perderemos nuestros medios de subsistencia y el medio ambiente será dañado porque quieren quemar los residuos, lo que forzará la extracción de nuevos recursos.

Hay 6000 familias de recicladores en nuestra ciudad y nuestro medio de vida depende de los residuos, si nos quitan los residuos para producir combustible derivado de los mismos, ¿cómo vamos a comer?

No es sólo una cuestión de nuestros medios de subsistencia; cuando las empresas queman los residuos, éstas contaminarán nuestra tierra, aire y ríos.

En el pasado, cuando estábamos trabajando en los contenedores de basura, recogiendo residuos de aquí y allá, fuimos ignorados, menospreciados y discriminados. Tan pronto como las empresas se dieron cuenta de que había dinero por hacerse a partir de los residuos, llegaron a quitarnos nuestros medios de subsistencia.

Sabemos que nuestras condiciones de trabajo no eran buenas, y queríamos cambiar eso. Por ello, hemos creado una cooperativa para promover la separación de residuos en la fuente, organizar la recolección puerta-a-puerta y mejorar nuestras condiciones laborales.

Cuando íbamos a recoger la basura de los contenedores, nadie nos pagaba, pero ahora dirigimos un sistema de recolección puerta-a-puerta y ganamos dinero por ello. Ya no se nos discrimina, nos ven con respeto y aprecio.

Antes nos trataban como animales, ahora si no llegamos a recoger la basura nos preguntan “¿qué pasó?” Realmente se preocupan por nosotros.

En las casas en las que doy servicio cuando les expliqué que iba a estar fuera durante unos días me preguntaron “¿dónde vas?” Les dije: “Voy a Dinamarca”, entonces me preguntaron “¿Cómo vas allí?” Les dije: “me voy en avión” y se vieron felizmente sorprendidos. Les expliqué que iba a representar a la cooperativa de recicladores y me pidieron que les informara lo que sucede en Dinamarca. Y así lo haré.

 Posted by admin at 19:44  Tagged with: , , , ,

Climate Change and the will to exist

 Environment, Political campaining, world governance  No Responses »
Dec 092009
 

If I take a step back to look at the historical moment we find ourselves in, I have to say that the negotiations in Copenhagen are different than any other negotiations I’ve ever assisted to.
Political negotiations are about compromise between the parts, it is about agreeing on the kind of grey that will rubberstamp the agreement. Survival negotiations are not negotiations; they are black or white. In Copenhagen there are two kinds of people; those who take this as a political negotiation and those who take this as a survival decision. Needless to say, a compromise will be more than difficult.

But, as I said, I wanted to look at this with a certain distance; humankind finds it self in a religious moment, in a purely philosophically existential dilemma, in a maturity test, in a “to be or not to be” situation…

We are in a religious moment because the world is about to “flood” for a second time (according to the old testament), the “sinners” have been warned by science (!) that if we continue with our life-style, with the business as usual, we will be flooded. Fair enough. The human race didn’t listen to the warnings of God the first time, the earth was flooded but God gave us a second chance. If we prove again that we are incapable of listening, of taking action to save ourselves… why should nature (or God for that matter) gives us another chance?

We are in a philosophical existential dilemma because as a race, as the big herd that we are, we have to choose between survival and extinction. The evolution of our philosophy has produced a society built on the basis of individuals, with irrational and artificially created material needs, and in which short term profit is put before the preservation of the species. Our philosophical evolution has also equipped us with phantastic logic reasoning, common sense, prudence. What will prevail?

We are in a maturity test because nature is testing our sociological and psicological evolution as a “team” to see if we are ready to survive as a whole or we rather prefer to test our luck. This means that blinded by the short term profit we chose to play our long term existence in a Russian roulette which in the best case will mean the sacrifice of some of us for the sake of the rest but which in 9 out of 10 cases means the disappearance of us all.

It is a “to be or not to be” situation because we have to take a common decision to “be”; to “exist”. Even if climate change would be an invention what is at stake in Copenhagen negotiation is the trust in ourselves as human beings beyond our national borders. If the developed and most polluting countries chose to abandon the developing countries with another treachery compromise the situation will deteriorate and the trust gap will increase. The south will become more and more suspicious about the north; whatever is left of trust will evaporate. And lack of trust in the team is the root of serious and long-lasting conflict.

Sadly, the text leaked today in which Denmark, US and UK worked behind all the other countries is a perfect example of how to destroy confidence with an otherwise very logical short-sighted move from the developped countries.

As redundant as it might sound humankind can only get out of this as a team… Today in Copenhagen I could see Africans screaming and crying out of rage, desertification is literally killing them. It is the second day and this risks getting emotional. Emotions? That animal instinct?

In my opinion the only way we will get anything useful out of Copenhagen is if our repressed animal instinct comes out and we make the irrational decision that “YES! Even though it will cost us money, sacrifice, power, you name it we still want to take the irrational decision to exist.”
Will we be that illogical? I doubt it…

 Posted by admin at 1:30  Tagged with: , , , , ,

Dirty tricks in Climate negotiations

 Environment, world governance  No Responses »
Dec 072009
 
The US has been giving the impression that they were taking the climate change negotiations more seriously than in previous times. And they do. To the extend of influencing the composition of the delegations that other countries are sending to the COP15 in Copenhagen so that they can get their way easily by taking out those negotiatiors known to be a pain.
The ultimate example of this sabotage strategy is the “coincidence” of the visit of US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton to the Philippines with the destitution of Bernardita de Castro Muller as climate-change advisor of the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs and coordinator for the G77 (group of the 77 development countries) and China Group in the climate-change talks.
Bernadita has been one of the main responsibles that the heterogeneous group of G77+China managed to articulate a strong and united message that tells the inconvenient truths that the developed countries don’t want to hear. Hence, the US thought it would be a good idea to get her out of the way so that the Copenhagen talks can be more “peaceful”. The 20 years experienced diplomat and her whole team were removed from the Philippine delegation, which at the same time left the G77+China without spokesperson.
The surprise came when right before the negotiations the Sudan delegation announced that Bernadita de Castro Muller would be representing the country which happens to chair the G77. Other members of her team appeared representing countries such as Bolivia. The “Ditas” team was back in the game!
The Philippino government made a fool of itself when it came out that the US strategy to behead the G77+China backfired and as Muller declared: “By serving as the negotiator for Sudan/G77, we will all be proving a point to the Annex 1 countries. Vulnerable countries, despite their “vulnerability”, can and will stand as one and be strong for each other and for the entire humanity.”
The US and the EU have been repeatedly trying to torpedo the unity of the developing world so that they can continue polluting whist at the same time even manage to make some money out of it. The old “divide and rule” tactic is being used over and over again.
It is true that the G77 is extremely heterogeneous and that countries like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait are radically different than countries such as Ruanda or Bangladesh but it is also true that the only way the G77+China can push the US and the EU to face its responsibilities is by staying together and acting as one. Having the experienced Bernardita Muller back in the negotiations, despite the efforts of the Americans to get her out of the way, will definitely help to bring in realism to Copenhagen.

Rich countries pay your climate debtThe US has been giving the impression that they were taking the climate change negotiations more seriously than in previous times. And they do. To the extend of influencing the composition of the delegations that other countries are sending to the COP15 in Copenhagen so that they can get their way easily by taking out those negotiatiors known to be a pain.

The ultimate example of this sabotage strategy is the “coincidence” of the visit of US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton to the Philippines with the destitution of Bernardita de Castro Muller as climate-change advisor of the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs and coordinator for the G77 (group of the 77 development countries) and China Group in the climate-change talks.

Bernadita has been one of the main responsibles that the heterogeneous group of G77+China managed to articulate a strong and united message that tells the inconvenient truths that the developed countries don’t want to hear. Hence, the US thought it would be a good idea to get her out of the way so that the Copenhagen talks can be more “peaceful”. The 20 years experienced diplomat and her whole team were removed from the Philippine delegation, which at the same time left the G77+China without spokesperson.

The surprise came when right before the negotiations the Sudan delegation announced that Bernadita de Castro Muller would be representing the country which happens to chair the G77. Other members of her team appeared representing countries such as Bolivia. The “Ditas” team was back in the game!

The Philippino government made a fool of itself when it came out that the US strategy to behead the G77+China backfired and as Muller declared: “By serving as the negotiator for Sudan/G77, we will all be proving a point to the Annex 1 countries. Vulnerable countries, despite their “vulnerability”, can and will stand as one and be strong for each other and for the entire humanity.”

The US and the EU have been repeatedly trying to torpedo the unity of the developing world so that they can continue polluting whist at the same time even manage to make some money out of it. The old “divide and rule” tactic is being used over and over again.

It is true that the G77 is extremely heterogeneous and that countries like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait are radically different than countries such as Ruanda or Bangladesh but it is also true that the only way the G77+China can push the US and the EU to face its responsibilities is by staying together and acting as one. Having the experienced Bernardita Muller back in the negotiations, despite the efforts of the Americans to get her out of the way, will definitely help to bring in realism to Copenhagen.

 Posted by admin at 22:19  Tagged with: , , , ,

Climate Change and the Story of a Distraction

 Environment, world governance  No Responses »
Dec 012009
 

Copenhagen negotiations are starting in one week and everything is set for the big show of business bullying the world, fantastic magical solutions and great speeches.
All in all a lot of distraction from what is really the problem:
1- How to effectively reduce emissions
2- How to change the business as usual in the scale proposed by Lester Brown in Plan B 3.0

All the rest is mainly distractions. The video below is an excellent and understandable explanation of what is important and what is superfluous about the historical negotiations we are about to assist to:

 Posted by admin at 9:47  Tagged with: , , , , ,
© 2012 JM Simon Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha