Por si fuera poco el daño que el Proyecto MetroBus causara a la ecología con la tala de miles de arboles urbanos, además de las molestas que implica ésta obra impuesta por el GDF, deja ahora también enfrentamientos vecinales entre tlatelolcas, por el derribe de más arboles.
El legitimo movimiento civil tlatelolca de valientes vecinos defensores de nuestros arboles, y cuyo propósito definiera el slogan ¡NI UN ARBOL MAS!, fue inevitablemente corrompido por corruptelas y politiquerías, lo que le debilitó y fracturó.
El protagonismo de Rommy Strevel Grace, una de las integrantes del movimiento, fue notorio desde el principio. Su astucia y avidez por hacerse notar en todas partes, le dio rápidamente notoriedad.
Rommy, conocida también entre los vecinos como una persona oportunista, un dia de repente dejo de luchar por el bien común, y en su lugar se le veía ataviadìsima organizando una planilla electoral para participar en las elecciones vecinales. Comenzaban ya los rumores sobre la negociación con el GDF de unos locales comerciales, para su uso y beneficio, a cambio claro está, de no seguir entorpeciendo más la obra MB. Finalmente, se comprobó que cobraba en nomina del GDF en la delegación Azcapotzalco, disque por unos "cursos de protección civil" que había tomado. Actitudes poco éticas en alguien que recibe favores de un patrón con el que en teoría, se tienen discrepancias.
Asi es como Rommy no solo traicionaba al movimiento ¡NI UN ARBOL MAS!, sino que ahora públicamente se manifiesta a favor de "tala correctiva y preventiva",(¿Será que ignora que todos los arboles de la ciudad están protegidos por la ley, y que no pueden ni deben ser derribados nomás por capricho, porque ello implicaría un delito ambiental?) y pugna insistentemente por el derribe injustificado de mas arboles, a nombre de los "tlatelolcas" y con el falso argumento de que es lo "mas conveniente", y lo peor de todo, ¡Sin contar con nuestro reconocimiento como "representante" ni con ninguna figura jurídica!.
Por eso, el pasado martes 7 de diciembre, una cuadrilla del GDF/MB, equipada con moto-sierras, cuerdas y camiones, con once meses de diferencia del ultimo e inevitable ecocidio, ¡Ahora pretendían comenzar otra vez con el derribe de nuestros arboles tlatelolcas! 7 majestuosas jacarandas de mas de 45 años ubicadas en la acera oriente de la PB del edificio Ignacio Ramírez en la esquina de Guerrero y Flores Magón, y a 20 m. aproximados de distancia de la obra MB, y que nada tienen que ver con dicho Proyecto.
Al día siguiente, y después de que 4 jacarandas fueran derribadas, Norma Huerta, vecina, fundadora del movimiento ¡NI UN ARBOL MAS!, de Mundo Patitas A.C., distinguida por CNN como uno de los 100 Mexicanos Revolucionariy os, logro detener este ecocidio, exhibiendo para ello decenas de firmas de vecinos tlatelolcas en repudio al derribe. En respuesta, el GDF se comprometió por escrito a realizar los trabajos de resarcimiento en áreas comunes, pero respetando las tres jacarandas que aun quedaban de pie.
Este hecho fue motivo de jubilo para muchos vecinos, menos para Rommy y un pequeño grupo de ingenuos o de igualmente dudosa calidad moral, quienes desde entonces se han avocado a mal informar a algunos vecinos y a azuzarlos en su contra, responsabilizando a Norma Huerta, "de los futuros daños que las raíces de las jacarandas puedan ocasionar". A Norma Huerta y a su señora madre ya las intentaron golpear; boicotearon sus medidores de luz, privándolas del servicio, les han despojado de sus lugares de estacionamiento y comienzan a recibir amenazas anónimas.
¡¡¡Y TODO POR DEFENDER ARBOLES TLATELOLCAS SANOS, DE MAS DE 45 AÑOS DE EDAD, QUE NO REPRESENTAN NINGUN RIESGO, QUE SON TOTALMENTE AJENOS AL PROYECTO MB, PROVEDORES DE OXIGENO Y SOMBRA, Y QUE ALBERGAN INFINIDAD DE BIODIVERSIDAD Y VIDA ENTRE SUS RAMAS!!!
Para mayor información escribe a: tlatelolco1964@hotmail.com
martes, 28 de diciembre de 2010
EFECTOS COLATERALES. Linea 3 del MetroBus deja enfrentamientos entre tlatelolcas. Norma Huerta amenazada.
Las obras de transporte de Marcelo Ebrard, implican siempre una gran tala de árboles, una gran protesta vecinal, y un fuerte hostigamiento a los vecinos afectados, por medio de granaderos, de empleados de gobierno embaucadores y de vecinos cooptados por sus gobierno. Estas talas de arboles y estas obras también se imponen por las acciones de los vecinos que se ponen al servicio del gobierno de la ciudad, como son la mayor parte de los que resultan electos en los comites vecinales. Por esta razón, los grandes empresarios de la ciudad de México le compraron a Ebrard su titulo de "Mejor Alcalde del Mundo". Les ruego apoyar a nuestra amiga Norma Huerta, gran defensora de los animales y los arboles.
Miguel Valencia
_________________________________
jueves, 16 de diciembre de 2010
klimaforum10 -- breve análisis de Toño Rojas
Hola a todos La lección que nos deja la reunión de Cancún es clara; Todos tenemos un grave problema como humanidad y solamente unidos en la diversidad podemos darle solución. Sin embargo hay que denunciar las falsas soluciones y como se reseño en vía campesina, más valía una COP sin acuerdos que una negociación como la que se dio (al parecer solo se negocio la entrada de los bosques como una mercancía más de los mercados mundiales mediante los programas REDD++). Esto favorecido en gran medida porque a mi parecer al interior de la COP las reuniones fueron un mar de acrónimos sobre negociaciones relativas a la trasferencia de tecnología e implementación de fideicomisos para mecanismos de lo que ahí dentro se llaman mecanismos de desarrollo limpio, de esta manera el lenguaje de la cumbre de las Naciones Unidas parece críptico e inobjetable a los oídos no acostumbrados a estos foros, sin embargo lo que yo percibí en el ambiente al interior del Moon Palace fue un animo de negociación de las distintas partes solo buscando un beneficio económico para sus respectivas naciones, corporaciones u organismos a los cuales representan y nunca para un bien común planetario en momentos en que esa conciencia de unidad se hace tan necesaria.
El retorno a la vida cotidiana nos recibe con tiempos alterados, mayores fríos y en algunos casos aumentos en los alimentos, aunque las acciones para hacer la humanidad vayan lentas, la madre tierra no se retrasa en cobrar las facturas y mas allá de lo logrado o no logrado en Cancún debemos urgentemente implementar acciones grupales y solidarias para implementar estrategias de cambio partiendo de la base comunitaria y no dejar de demostrar al mundo que hay alternativas provenientes de la sociedad civil, ese es el camino que debe preceder a la reunión en Durban. Desde la ciudad de Puebla les envío un gran saludo a todos, y estamos en contacto, espero poder traducir esto pronto para mandarlo en Ingles. Atte Toño Colectivo Cosmovisión Madre Tierra México |
-------------
Antonio Rojas
orion060675@yahoo.com
miércoles, 15 de diciembre de 2010
Sobre INES Global, científicos por la responsabilidad global: GREEN SOLUTIONS, FALSE SOLUTIONS
Este es el grupo de cientificos que se presentó en el Klimaforum10, encabezado por Reiner Braun de la Universidad de Berlin, para ofrecer su ponencia Science and Responsibility, en colaboración con la Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) USA. Un gran gusto descubrir a esta red de científicos interesados en rescatar a la ciencia del desastre en la que se encuentra. Pude coincidir con ellos virtualmente en todo lo que dijeron. Este solo encuentro justificó la existencia del Klimaforum10:
INES- International Network of Engineers and Scientists fro Global Responsability (INES), Schutzenstr.6a,D-10117 Berlin, Germany. www.inesglobal.com
Miguel Valencia
----------------------
GREEN SOLUTIONS, FALSE SOLUTIONS
Un gran espacio se ha creado en Cancun, durante la cumbre del cambio climatico, la COP-16: el muy empresarial Green Solutions que ha gozado de un gran apoyo publicitario y que presenta las propuestas del pujante capitalismo verde que pretende contar con tecnología verde que puede resolver resolver todos los problemas ambientales que padecemos, desde los focos ahorradores hasta los autos y omnibuses hibiridos o con hidrogeno. Coartadas ambientalistas para todo tipo de empresas. Tecnologías queED resultan finalmente mas contaminantes que las existentes. Una coleccion de falsas soluciones que impresionan a los que no tienen los pies en la tierra.
MEGAPROYECTOS, MEGAPROBLEMAS
En el taller de Megaproyectos coordinado por Ecomunidades en el Klimaforum10, analizamos los efectos destructivos de los megaproyectos, desde su gestación hasta su funcionamiento estratégico, despues de una generacion: 20-30 años despues de su inauguración; desde sus efectos sociales y ambientales deletéreos, hasta sus efectos nefastos en la justicia, la democracia y la cultura; establecimos una breve relación de megaproyectos que va desde las vias rápidas hasta las presas y las extracciones petroleras o mineras. Los megaproyectos como manifestacion de las fuerzas de la globalizacion o como forma superior de destrucción del tejido social y de los bienes comunes; también, como utopía de los grandes empresarios y politicos. Grandes organizaciones ambientalistas vecinales o regionales nacen y se fortalecen en el mundo, por la proliferacion de megaproyectos en todos los contientes. Es urgente desmontar el imaginario social que apoya a los megaproyectos, creado por las universidades y la mercadotecnia politica.
LA TECNOCIENCIA ES UN CULTO QUE PARALIZA A LA SOCIEDAD Y QUE SOLO PUEDE PROPONER FALSAS SOLUCIONES
Hoy en día la ciencia se ha convertido en tecnociencia; es decir: en una ciencia nacida de un gran aparato tecnologico de dimensiones cada dia mayores que está al servicio del gran capital, al punto que lo cientifico es solo aquello que puede recibir financiamiento. Uno de cada dos cientificos se dedican a los asuntos militares en EUA. Además, esta tecnociencia se ha convertido en un culto que paraliza a la sociedad con sus "milagros" y sus "visiones" del futuro. Las utopias cientificas o distopias, propiamente, describen viajes a otros planetas, ambientes sin vida, manipulaciones extremas de la materia y de los ecosistemas El reduccionismo que domina al pensamiento científico impide la elaboración de soluciones a los problemas del mundo moderno. No obstante, la tecnociencia se ha convertido en uno de los mayores peligros para la humanidad; la investigación cientifica está cada día mas desquiciada al punto que sus tecnologías mas conspicuas, como la nuclear, la genetica, la nanotecnología, la robotica y la electronica, ponen en grave riesgo el futuro de la humanidad y contribuyen cada día mas la depredación de los dones de la naturaleza. Por otra parte, esta tecnociencia es totalmente incapaz de ofrecer verdaderas soluciones a los grandes problemas de la humanidad, como el cambio climático o la conservación de suelos, aguas y aires limpios en el mundo; solo puede proponer falsas soluciones, pues está secuestrada por el pensamiento economico y la filosofia utilitarista. Afortundamente existen cientificos como los del grupo INES que tratan de rescatar a la ciencia de su terrible situación filosofica y politica.
Impresionantes imágenes: [climate justice now!] Leave the oil in the soil: graphic display
Impresionantes imágenes de la explotación petrolera a nivel mundial y sus deplorables consecuencias destructivas.
Fotos del mundo del petróleo, de un gran artista.
DEJEN EL PETROLEO BAJO LA TIERRA
Gloriously filthy photos here, at a Washington museum: http://www.corcoran.org/exhibitions/press_burtynsky/
--
Miguel Valencia
ECOMUNIDADES
Red Ecologista Autónoma de la Cuenca de México
--
Miguel Valencia
ECOMUNIDADES
Red Ecologista Autónoma de la Cuenca de México
[climate justice now!] DOCUMENTO DEL GGR EN CANCUN
Klimaforum10 visitó a ESMEX Dialogo Climático (en su versión anterior Frente Amplio)en mayo pasado,para llevarles una propuesta de unidad, pero, sólo recibió un ultimatum de parte de este grupo; se nos dijo: - en la proxima reunión de ESMEX, la iniciativa Klimaforum10 anuncia su desaparición o se retira de las reuniones de ESMEX en las que ha participado hasta esta fecha. Klimaforum10 se ve obligado a denunciar entonces el ultimatum y se retira de ESMEX, para impulsar por separado su iniciativa. Klimaforum10 envió a La Vía Campesina-México (Alberto Gómez),una carta a mitad del año en la que proponía trabajar conjuntamente, ya que hemos compartido el rechazo tajante al programa REDD plus y a los mecanismos de mercado, sin embargo, LVC-Mexico ignoró nuestra propuesta, a pesar de nuestras reiteradas solicitudes posteriores, con representantes de esa iniciativa, como Jesus Andrarde y Alfredo Acedo. En octubre lanzamos en la red CJN y en otros ambitos, la propuesta de establecer un espacio único en Cancun, en el que pudieran concurrir La Vía Campesina, Dialogo Climático ESMEX y Klimaforum10, para fortalecer las posiciones de las organizaciones sociales y civiles de otros países que nos visitarían. No recibimos gesto o señal alguna de que hubiera interes de parte La Vía Campesina o del Dialogo Climático ESMEX, de considerar la manera de contar con este espacio unico de las organizaciones sociales y civiles en Cancun. Muy a nuestro pesar nos vimos obligados a establecer un espacio separado para el Klimaforum10. En las reuniones de coordinación realizadas en Cancun fue otra vez evidente el gran desinteres de La Vía Campesina y de ESMEX, por acciones coordinadas, unificadas. Lamentamos mucho esta division que facilitó la tarea a los países mega depredadores.Agradecemos mucho a los compañeros de CJN que visitaron nuestro espacio y que nos honraron con sus muy gentiles y valiosos comentarios. Continuaremos con nuestro público rechazo al REDD plus, a los mecanismos de mercado, a la energía nuclear, a los transgénicos, a la geoingeniería.
Miguel Valencia
------------------------------------
Los diferentes espacios de resistencia en la COP 16 de Cancún
Una semana ha pasado ya desde que el GRR llegara a Cancún. Recién ahora las cosas comienzan a verse con mayor claridad.
Los espacios y las diferentes visiones logran, entre tanta desorganización, armar sus campamentos y foros desde donde pretenden enfrentar las negociaciones que se están llevando a cabo en la COP 16.
Las voces alternativas a la Cumbre Oficial se encuentran muy divididas. Por un lado están los del Klimaforum 10, por otro los de Dialogo Climático o Espacio Mexicano (EsMex), por otro La Via Campesina y también espacios autónomos como los "anti COP" y otros. Cada uno tiene su propio campamento, cada uno tiene su propio mensaje y no han logrado aunar los criterios para coincidir en un enfrentamiento conjunto a las negociaciones del clima que dentro de la COP se llevan a cabo sin mayores interferencias.
En la división de los espacios alternativos encontramos de todo.
Las grandes Corporaciones y las fundaciones que las acompañan, han estado trabajando sigilosamente para escurrirse entre los espacios alternativos.
La Fundación Avina, del millonario suizo Stephan Schmidenhy, de larga y siniestra trayectoria en nuestra América Mestiza, por comprar voluntades detrás de proyectos supuestamente beneficiosos para nuestros pueblos y comunidades, ofreció una dádiva económica para la organización de Klimaforum 10.
La presencia del Grupo de Reflexión Rural en Cancún, sirvió para alertar sobre esta Fundación y así desenmascarar sus intentos de cooptar estos espacios, siendo que luego el Klimaforum decidió rechazar los fondos que intentaba aportar Avina.
Avina intentó y fracasó, y una vez más se ha logrado poner en evidencia su complicidad y manipulación en sus operaciones globales para secuestrar el clima y manipular los territorios de resistencia a los imperativos del capitalismo concentrado, empeñado ahora en apropiarse de la tierra, el agua y el aire que son los bienes comunes a toda la humanidad.
Esperamos que el fracaso de este intento empresario se sepa en todos lados, especialmente en nuestros países latinoamericanos donde Avina extiende sus tentáculos hasta los lugares más recónditos y cuenta con la complicidad de numerosos colaboradores locales y ONGs, que enmascaran sus actividades tras la fachada de un capitalismo verde amigable y respetuoso de los ecosistemas y sus poblaciones.
Por otro lado, con sorpresa nos enteramos que uno de los dirigentes campesinos, Cecilio Solis Librado, presidente de la Asociación Civil Red Indígena de Turismo de México, quien forma parte del Comité Organizador del Espacio de Diálogo Climático o EsMex, resulta ser de los "emprendedores" de Ashoka (http://mexico.ashoka.org/node/3967), fundación que, como Avina, impulsan el individualismo, con la idea de unir el concepto de "empresas competitivas" con el de ONGs para hacer negocios, rompiendo las culturas y tradiciones de nuestros pueblos, tras el impulso del "desarrollo sostenible" que en realidad implica el crecimiento sin límites y a toda costa.
Como puede verse en el propio link que se indica arriba, que nos lleva al espacio Mexicano de Ashoka, "Cecilio está creando un nivel nacional de "negocios indígenas" (¿?) a través de la unión de proyectos comunitarios de ecoturismo y culturales. En el proceso, el está demostrando que al empoderar comunidades indígenas son capaces de perseguir objetivos, los cuales generan ingresos, preservan la cultura y protegen la biodiversidad ambiental. Cecilio ve al ecoturismo como una oportunidad económica la cual deben explorar las comunidades indígenas.- La red de Cecilio llamada RITA, une y construye el desarrollo para las empresas de ecoturismo a lo largo de México. La marca RITA confiere un nivel de calidad garantizado a los visitantes. Como red nacional, RITA ofrece el acceso organizado turístico a un sistema diverso y auténtico de ecosistemas y de culturas, y su tamaño permite un alcance sofisticado de la comercialización en los mercados internacionales que las comunidades individuales no podrían alcanzar por sí mismas." (resaltados propios). Lo que decir nos sobra y nos abruma, pero el texto habla por sí sólo.
Para aclarar aún más, Ashoka se encuentra asociada a Avina desde el año 1993 y han recibido fondos de la Fundación Bill y Melinda Gates en el año 2009.
El Grupo de Reflexión Rural, cree necesario alertar a todas las organizaciones y comunidades de la resistencia global, porque estamos seguros de que intentarán por todos los medios y con todos los recursos económicos, torcer nuestra firme voluntad de denunciar los nuevos negociados y maniobras financieras que pretenden imponer en la COP 16.
Fundaciones como Avina y Ashoka son el enemigo de la Tierra Madre y de las poblaciones oprimidas.
Nuestros esfuerzos:
Entre tantos intereses desparramados, el Grupo de Reflexión Rural mantiene su postura en contra de la matriz del progreso y de la modernidad.
Intentamos cada día, en cada charla y donde nos preguntan y exponemos, denunciar que no se puede atacar los problemas del clima sin atacar las bases fundantes que están instaladas en lo más profundo de nuestros modos y hábitos modernos y consumistas.
Resistir los nuevos y sofisticados mecanismos que se negocian en la COP, que se intentan imponer como supuestas soluciones de mitigación y atenuación del Cambio Climático, es aquí una tarea diaria. Denunciamos los monocultivos, los transgénicos, la biotecnología, los proyectos REDD en todas sus variantes, los MDL y demás instrumentos del mercado que intentan imponerse en las negociaciones para continuar con el modelo extractivo y destructivo.
También dialogamos y proponemos una visión alternativa en torno al Descrecimiento, con una visión pensada y creada desde nuestra cultura y realidad latinoamericana.
Es, además, donde más cómodos nos sentimos, porque es por lo que siempre hemos luchado, lo que siempre hemos sostenido e impulsado.
Nuestras propuestas de agricultura ecológica, Soberanía Alimentaria, de repoblamiento de nuestro territorio en el camino de ir desarmando las grandes megalópolis y sus inmensos cinturones de pobreza, la revalorización de las tradiciones y las culturas de nuestros ancestros y los desarrollos locales que siempre hemos impulsado, son recibidas con entusiasmo y muchos ven en ellas un camino que puede desarmar los intrincados y complejos sistemas construidos en torno del progreso y el desarrollo sin límites, pero a la vez con una necesaria justicia social.
En ese camino nos encontramos, conociendo nuevos compañeros y encontrando algunos viejos amigos con quienes juntos aunar nuestra luchas.
Hacia la marcha del 07/12:
Estamos parados ante la inminencia de una marcha que se llevará a cabo el día 07 de diciembre en diferentes sitios.
Las reuniones sostenidas por los diferentes espacios con el fin de coordinar una marcha conjunta, aparentemente han sido un fracaso.
Quienes coordinan el espacio de Diálogo Climático o ExMex, son organizaciones del país anfitrión.
La Via Campesina ha sostenido una posición muy rígida en las reuniones.
Su posición es terminante, deciden ir por su cuenta, con su diagrama de marcha armado y anunciado desde hace varios meses.
Los del Klimaforum han decidido sumarse a la marcha de LVC, a lo que se les ha propuesto marchar en bloques diferenciados, cada uno con sus consignas.
Los del EsMex hasta el momento han decidido que van por su lado, seguirán su propia ruta en una marcha autónoma.
La marcha de LVC intentará llegar al Moon Palace, sitio donde están reunidos los representantes de los países.
En dicho sitio se espera el encuentro con los representantes de la delegación boliviana que han prometido salir al encuentro de la marcha y recibir las propuestas de los diferentes espacios que serán entregadas por separado y luego llevadas a las negociaciones para introducir en el debate dentro de la COP.
Existe un generalizado consenso y apoyo al Gobierno de Bolivia.
Aquí se intenta hacer valer el documento elaborado en el marco del Encuentro de los Pueblos por el Cambio Climático y los Derechos de la Madre Tierra que fuera consecuencia de los encuentros de Cochabamba en mayo de este año.
Como GRR hemos estado en Cochabamba y sabemos de las virtudes y desventajas de dicho documento, pero hoy se vislumbra como la opción más sólida y más apoyada en el marco del desafío de Cancún.
Aguardamos el proceso de la marcha, la respuesta y el avance de las negociaciones para poder tener una imagen más clara de lo que nos dejará Cancún, aunque el sabor amargo se siente desde antes de venir hasta aquí.
Grupo de reflexión Rural
Cancún – Diciembre de 2010
[climate justice now!] A crit of Cancun climate capitalism
'Climate capitalism' won at Cancun - everyone else loses
by Patrick Bond
CANCUN, MEXICO. The December 11 closure of the 16th Conference of the Parties – the global climate summit - in balmy Cancun was portrayed by most participants and mainstream journalists as a victory, a 'step forward'. Bragged US State Department lead negotiator Todd Stern, "Ideas that were first of all, skeletal last year, and not approved, are now approved and elaborated."
After elite despondency when the Copenhagen Accord was signed last December 18 by five countries behind the scenes, resulting in universal criticism, there is now a modicum of optimism for the next meeting of heads of state and ministers, in steamy Durban in the dogdays of a South African summer a year from now. But this hope relies upon a revival of market-based climate strategies which, in reality, are failing everywhere they have been tried.
The elites' positive spin is based on reaching an international consensus (though Bolivia formally dissented) and establishing instruments to manage the climate crisis using capitalist techniques. Cancun's defenders argue that the last hours' agreements include acknowledgements that emissions cuts must keep world temperature increases below 2°C, with consideration to be given to lowering the target to 1.5°C.
Negotiators also endorsed greater transparency about emissions, a Green Climate Fund led by the World Bank, introduction of forest-related investments, transfers of technology for renewable energy, capacity-building and a strategy for reaching legally-binding protocols in future. According to UN climate official Christiana Figueres, formerly a leading carbon trader, "Cancun has done its job. Nations have shown they can work together under a common roof, to reach consensus on a common cause."
Status quo or step back?
But look soberly at what was needed to reverse current warming and what was actually delivered. Negotiators in Cancun's luxury Moon Palace hotel complex failed by any reasonable measure. As Bolivian President Evo Morales complained, "It's easy for people in an air-conditioned room to continue with the policies of destruction of Mother Earth. We need instead to put ourselves in the shoes of families in Bolivia and worldwide that lack water and food and suffer misery and hunger. People here in Cancun have no idea what it is like to be a victim of climate change."
For Bolivia's UN ambassador Pablo Solon, Cancun "does not represent a step forward, it is a step backwards", because the non-binding commitments made to reduce emissions by around 15 percent by 2020 simply cannot stabilize temperature at the "level which is sustainable for human life and the life of the planet."
Even greater anger was expressed in civil society, including by Meena Raman of Malaysia-based Third World Network: "The mitigation paradigm has changed from one which is legally binding – the Kyoto Protocol with an aggregate target which is system-based, science based – to one which is voluntary, a pledge-and-review system." As El Salvadoran Friends of the Earth leader Ricardo Navarro lamented, "What is being discussed at the Moon does not reflect what happens on Earth. The outcome is a Cancunhagen that we reject."
Most specialists agree that even if the unambitious Copenhagen and Cancun promises are kept (a big if), the result will be a cataclysmic 4-5°C rise in temperature over this century, and if they are not, 7°C is likely. Even with a rise of 2°C, scientists generally agree, small islands will sink, Andean and Himalayan glaciers will melt, coastal areas such as much of Bangladesh and many port cities will drown, and Africa will dry out – or in some places flood – so much that nine of ten peasants will not survive.
The politicians and officials have been warned of this often enough by climate scientists, but are beholden to powerful business interests which are lined up to either promote climate denialism, or to generate national-versus-national negotiating blocs destined to fail in their race to gain most emission rights. As a result, in spite of a bandaid set of agreements, the distance between negotiators and the masses of people and the planet grew larger not smaller over the last two weeks.
WikiLeaking climate bribery
To illustrate, smaller governments were "bullied, hustled around, lured with petty bribes, called names and coerced into accepting the games of the rich and emerging-rich nations," says Soumya Dutta of the South Asian Dialogues on Ecological Democracy. "Many debt-ridden small African nations are seeing the money that they might get through the scheming designs of Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD), and have capitulated under the attack of this REDD brigade. It's a win-win situation, both for the rich nations, as well as for the rich of the poor nations. The real poor are a burden in any case, to be kept at arms length - if not further."
Bribing those Third World governments which in 2009 were the most vocal critics of Northern climate posturing became common knowledge thanks to WikiLeaks disclosures of US State Department cables from February 2010. Last February 11, for example, EU climate action commissioner Connie Hedegaard told the US that the Alliance of Small Island States "'could be our best allies', given their need for financing."
A few months earlier, the Maldives helped lead the campaign against low emissions targets such as those set in the Copenhagen Accord. But its leaders reversed course, apparently because of a $50 million aid package arranged by US deputy climate change envoy Jonathan Pershing. According to a February 23 cable, Pershing met the Maldives' US ambassador, Abdul Ghafoor Mohamed, who told him that if 'tangible assistance' were given his country, then other affected countries would realise "the advantages to be gained by compliance" with Washington's climate agenda.
The promised money is, however, in doubt. Hedegaard also noted with concern that some of the $30 billion in pledged North-South climate-related aid from 2010-2012 – e.g. from Tokyo and London, she said – would come in the form of loan guarantees, not grants. Pershing was not opposed to this practice, because "donors have to balance the political need to provide real financing with the practical constraints of tight budgets."
Even while observing Washington's tendency to break financial promises, Ethiopian prime minister Meles Zenawi, the leading African head of state on climate, was also unveiled by WikiLeaks as a convert to the Copenhagen Accord. This appeared to be the outcome of pressure applied by the US State Department, according to a February 2 cable, with Zenawi asking for more North-South resources in return.
REDD as wedge
Besides Bolivian leadership, the world's best hope for contestation of these power relationships rests with civil society. Along with La Via Campesina network of peasant organizations, which attracted a Mexico-wide caravan and staged a militant march that nearly reached the airport access road on the morning of December 7 as heads of state flew into Cancun, the most visible poor peoples' representatives were from the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN). On December 8, IEN spokesperson Tom Goldtooth was denied entry to the UN forum due to his high-profile role in non-violent protests.
According to Goldtooth, Cancun's 'betrayal' is "the consequence of an ongoing US diplomatic offensive of backroom deals, arm-twisting and bribery that targeted nations in opposition to the Copenhagen Accord." For Goldtooth, an ardent opponent of REDD, "Such strategies have already proved fruitless and have been shown to violate human and Indigenous rights. The agreements implicitly promote carbon markets, offsets, unproven technologies, and land grabs – anything but a commitment to real emissions reductions. Language 'noting' rights is exclusively in the context of market mechanisms, while failing to guarantee safeguards for the rights of peoples and communities, women and youth."
The founder of watchdog NGO REDD-Monitor, Chris Lang, argues that attempts to reform the system failed because, first, "Protecting intact natural forest and restoring degraded natural forest is not a 'core objective' of the REDD deal agreed in Cancun. We still don't have a sensible definition of forests that would exclude industrial tree plantations, to give the most obvious example of how protecting intact natural forest isn't in there – also 'sustainable management of forests' is in there, which translates as logging."
Second, says Lang, "The rights and interests of indigenous peoples and forest communities are not protected in the Cancun REDD deal – they are demoted to an annex, with a note that 'safeguards' should be 'promoted and supported'. That could mean anything governments want it to mean."
During the Cancun negotiations, positioning on REDD came to signal whether climate activists were pro- or anti-capitalist, although a difficult in-between area was staked out by Greenpeace and the International Forum on Globalisation which both, confusingly, advocated a non-market REDD arrangement (as if the balance of forces would allow such). But they and their allies lost, and as Friends of the Earth chapters in Latin America and the Caribbean explained, "The new texts continue seeing forests as mere carbon reservoirs (sinks) and are geared towards emissions trading."
In the same way, the Green Fund was promoted by World Bank president Robert Zoellick, whose highest-profile speech to a side conference promised to extend the REDD commodification principle to broader sectors of agriculture and even charismatic animals like tigers, in alliance with Russian leader Vladimir Putin. On December 8, protests demanded that the World Bank be evicted from climate financing, in part because under Zoellick the institution's annual fossil fuel investments rose from $1.6 billion to $6.3 billion, and in part because the Bank promotes export-led growth, resource extraction, energy privatisation and carbon markets with unshaken neoliberal dogma.
According to Grace Garcia from Friends of the Earth Costa Rica, "Only a gang of lunatics would think it is a good idea to invite the World Bank to receive climate funds, with their long-standing track-record of financing the world's dirtiest projects and imposition of death-sentencing conditionalities on our peoples."
Unfortunately, however, some indigenous people's groups and Third World NGOs do buy into REDD, and well-funded Northern allies such as the market-oriented Environmental Defense Fund have been using divide-and-conquer tactics to widen the gaps. The danger this presents is extreme, because the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) strategy set in place by Al Gore in 1997 – when he mistakenly (and self-interestedly) promised that the US would endorse the Kyoto Protocol if carbon trading was central to the deal – may well continue to fracture climate advocacy.
REDD is one of several blackmail tactics from the North, by which small sums are paid for projects such as tree-planting or forest conservation management. In some cases, as well as through CDMs such as methane-extraction from landfills, these projects result in displacement of local residents or, in the case of Durban's main CDM, the ongoing operation of a vast, environmentally-racist dump in the black neighbourhood of Bisasar Road, instead of its closure. Then the Northern corporations which buy the emissions credits can continue business-as-usual without making the major changes needed to solve the crisis.
Climate debt and command-and-control
Many critics of REDD and other CDMs, including Morales, put the idea of Climate Debt at the core of a replacement financing framework. They therefore demand that the carbon markets be decommissioned, because their fatal flaws include rising levels of corruption, periodic chaotic volatility, and extremely low prices inadequate to attract investment capital into renewable energy and more efficient transport. Such investments minimally would cost the equivalent of €50/tonne of carbon, but the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme fell from €30/tonne in 2008 to less than €10/tonne last year, and now hovers around €15/tonne. This makes it much cheaper for business to keep polluting than to restructure.
Having spent an afternoon at Cancun debating these points with the world's leading carbon traders, I'm more convinced that the markets need closure so we can advance much more effective, efficient command-and-control systems. Rebutting, Henry Derwent, head of the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), claimed that markets ended acid rain damage done by sulfur dioxide emissions. Yet in Europe during the early 1990s, state regulation was much more effective. Likewise, command-and-control worked well in the ozone hole emergency, when CFCs were banned by the Montreal Protocol starting in 1996.
The US Environmental Protection Agency now has command-and-control power over GreenHouseGas emissions, and its top administrator, Lisa Jackson, can alert around 10,000 major CO2 point sources that they must start cutting back immediately. But without more protest against the Agency, as pioneered by West Virginians demanding a halt to mountaintop coal removal, Jackson has said that she will only begin this process in 2013 (after Obama's reelection campaign). On the bright side, IETA's lead Washington official, David Hunter, confirmed to me that the US carbon markets were in the doldrums because of the Senate's failure to pass cap-and-trade legislation this year. Thank goodness for Washington gridlock.
However, Washington's Big Green groups have admitted that they pumped $300 million of foundation money into advocacy for congressional carbon trading, in spite of Climate Justice Now! members' campaigning against this approach. Critique has included the film "The story of cap and trade" (www.storyofstuff.org), which over the past year had three quarters of a million views. The vast waste of money corresponded to a resource drought at the base.
In October, three well-resourced environmental groups – 350.org, Rainforest Action Network and Greenpeace – concluded that more direct action would be needed. It's happening already, of course. Two dozen US groups, including IEN, Grassroots Global Justice and Movement Generation, argued in an October 23 open letter that "Frontline communities, using grassroots, network-based, and actions-led strategies around the country have had considerable success fighting climate-polluting industries in recent years, with far less resources than the large environmental groups in Washington, D.C. These initiatives have prevented a massive amount of new industrial carbon from coming on board."
Climate justice instead of climate capitalism
But by all accounts, one reason the climate capitalist fantasy moved ahead at Cancun so decisively was the fragmented nature of this kind of resistance. Crucial ideological and geographical divides were evident within Mexico's progressive forces, a problem which must be avoided in the coming period as the healing of divisions over market-related strategies proceeds. Grassroots activists are unimpressed by Cancun's last-gasp attempt at climate-capitalist revivalism.
Indeed, the limited prospects for elite environmental management of this crisis confirm how badly a coherent alternative is needed. Fortunately, the Peoples' Agreement of Cochabamba emerged in April from a consultative meeting that drew 35 000 mainly civil society activists. The Cochabamba conference call includes:
• 50 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2017
• stabilising temperature rises to 1°C and 300 Parts Per Million
• acknowledging the climate debt owed by developed countries
• full respect for Human Rights and the inherent rights of indigenous people
• universal declaration of rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony with nature
• establishment of an International Court of Climate Justice
• rejection of carbon markets and commodification of nature and forests through REDD
• promotion of measures that change the consumption patterns of developed countries
• end of intellectual property rights for technologies useful for mitigating climate change
• payment of 6 percent of developed countries' GDP to addressing climate change
The analysis behind these demands has been worked out over the past few years. But now the challenge for climate justice movements across the world is to not only continue – and dramatically ratchet up – vibrant grassroots activism against major fossil fuel emissions and extraction sites, ranging from Alberta's tar sands to the Ecuadoran Amazon to San Francisco refineries to the Niger Delta to West Virginia mountains to the Australian and South African coalfields. In addition, if Cancun revives financial markets for the purposes of Northern manipulation of the climate debate, then Goldtooth's warning is more urgent: "Industrialized nations, big business and unethical companies like Goldman Sachs will profit handsomely from the Cancun Agreements while our people die."
Durban will offer the next big showdown between unworkable capitalist strategies on the one hand, and the interests of the masses of people and the planet's environment. The latter have witnessed long histories of eco-social mobilization, such as the 2001 World Conference Against Racism which attracted a protest of 15,000 against Zionism and the UN's failure to put reparations for slavey, colonialism and apartheid on the agenda.
It will be a challenge to maintain pressure against REDD and the carbon markets, but by next November it should be clear that neither will deliver the goods. Hence, as versed by Friends of the Earth International chair and Niger Delta activist Nnimmo Bassey, a winner of the Right Livelihood Award this year:
The outside will be the right side in Durban------------------------------------------------------------------
What has been left undone
Will properly be done
Peoples' sovereignty
Mass movement convergence
Something to look forward to!
(Patrick Bond is based at the Centre for Civil Society at the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban – http://ccs.ukzn.ac.za – and is on sabbatical at Cal-Berkeley Department of Geography. He coedited the 2009 book Climate Change, Carbon Trading and Civil Society, published by UKZN Press.)
[climate justice now!] Fw: TWN Cancún News Update No.19
Cancun texts adopted, overriding Bolivia's objections
Cancun, Dec 13 (Meena Raman) – Two decisions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, which the Mexican host government dubbed as "the Cancun Agreements", were adopted in the early hours of the morning of Saturday, December 11, despite a lack of consensus following objections by Bolivia to their adoption.
The outcome was heralded by Mexican Foreign Affairs Minister, Patricia Espinosa, who presided over the Cancun climate conference, as "a new era of international cooperation on climate change." The conference comprised two main meetings, the 16th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP 16) and the 6th Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 6).
The two draft documents had been put together by the Mexican presidency of the Conference, and were "clean texts" (without square brackets or options). They were issued on a "take it or leave it" basis as a final package, and not as drafts for possible amendments.
The documents were initially presented by Espinosa at an informal plenary meeting of the COP and CMP convened at 6 pm on Friday, 10 December. Delegates were given 3 hours to review the texts before the next informal plenary at 9.15 p.m. The first plenary had been scheduled at 8.30 am but the draft texts were not ready.
The draft text for the Ad-hoc Working Group under the Kyoto Protocol (AWGKP) outcome was issued around noon, while that for the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWGLCA) was distributed around 5pm. The notes at the front of each of the draft texts state that the documents "had been prepared in direct response to requests from Parties urging the President to present a text that covers all the issues and paints the whole picture of the outcome."
At a later informal plenary of the COP/CMP which started at 9.15 pm on Friday, Espinosa said that these texts were the product of a collective exercise of drafting and that any change needs the support of others. At the start of this informal plenary, and at various times of the night, Espinosa received a standing ovation from large sections of the participants, and there was an atmosphere of near euphoria. This was understood to be a sign by advocates of the documents to urge all delegations to adopt them.
However there was not unanimity, as Bolivia raised strong objections to the adoption of both the documents, first at the informal plenary of the COP/CMP, then at the formal sessions of the AWGKP and AWGLCA and then at the final plenary meetings of the COP and the CMP. Bolivia's Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, Pablo Solon, presented detailed reasons why he found both texts unacceptable.
While many delegations urged for the documents to be adopted without changes, some requested that Bolivia should be allowed to voice its concerns in the spirit of inclusiveness. Bolivia insisted that there was no consensus as it objected to the documents. However, Espinosa gaveled both decisions, signifying adoption, after indicating that the objection from one delegation did not constitute a lack of consensus.
After the adoption of the documents, Norway said that many in the audience shared Bolivia's concerns but these concerns could be addressed in years to come and that this was not the final agreement but a major step in the right direction.
Many countries, both developed and developing, expressed support for the two texts, saying they reflected balance, pragmatism and compromises, while many also used qualifications such as that they were "imperfect" or that they felt "guarded optimism". A few countries, notably Cuba and Ecuador, raised concerns over several issues in the texts. Several countries also said that following the failure to reach agreement in Copenhagen, the Cancun outcome restored confidence in the multilateral process. Other countries were even more upbeat. Australia called the agreements "a game changing moment for the climate change."
The mood among many delegations appeared to be that the texts should be adopted in order to avoid the collapse of another climate conference, following the failure of the Copenhagen conference last year. Several delegates privately said that another failure would further dent the image of the UNFCCC and multilateralism, and that it would be difficult for the talks to regain momentum. In this atmosphere of having "all or nothing", many developing countries decided to go along with the drafts even though they had concerns on various parts.
The highlight of the long night's proceedings was an intense exchange between the COP President and the Bolivian delegation over the President's gaveling of the decisions as being adopted despite the objection, giving rise to argument as to what the meaning of consensus was. In the practice of the UNFCCC, decisions have been taken on the basis of consensus.
Bolivia's Ambassador Solon said that consensus required the absence of explicit rejection or objection to a decision proposed for adoption and that consensus did not mean a majority being in favour to adopt a decision. In contrast, Mexico's Foreign Minister Espinosa was of the view that consensus did not mean unanimity or a right of a Party to veto a decision.
Joining the exchange on this issue was US climate envoy, Todd Stern who supported the adoption of the agreements and suggested that the "practice in this body has been general agreement rather than consensus."
At the conclusion of Cancun meetings, Mexican President Filipe Calderon said that "a good agreement is one in which all Parties are left equally dissatisfied."
The following are highlights of the various meetings in the final plenary meetings.
The CMP meeting
When the draft decision on the Kyoto Protocol process under the AWGKP was presented by Espinosa for adoption under the CMP, Bolivia gave its reasons why it was opposed to the decision. Solon said that this decision did not represent a step forward but was a step backwards as what was being done was to postpone indefinitely a decision under the Kyoto Protocol and it opened the doors to a regime which will be flexible and voluntary for a pledge and review approach and not a system where all Annex 1 Parties will fulfill a set target.
Referring to paragraph 3 of the text where Parties took note of "quantified economy wide emission reduction targets to be implemented by Annex 1 Parties as communicated by them and contained in document FCCC/SB/2010/INF X", Solon said that this document did not exist and that Parties "do not know what these commitments will be and if these commitments will lead to a stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions which will be sustainable for human life and plants."
He added that if what was being referred to in the document were the Copenhagen Accord pledges, this would only amount to a 13 to 17% reductions in emissions compared to 1990 levels, which will lead to a temperature rise of 4 degree C.
[Earlier, at the 9.15pm informal plenary COP/CMP meeting held by Espinosa, Solon said that such a temperature level could lead to a situation of "genocide and ecocide." Bolivia could not agree to an agreement "which will put more human lives in a situation close to death." Bolivia had come to Cancun to ensure that there would be a decision to guarantee a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol and this document did not guarantee that.]
Solon at the CMP plenary said that his government wanted modifications to the text, which was, received just hours ago and which it was asked to be adopted without any modification or amendment. "If the document represented a step forward, we would have supported it. What is going to emerge is not a stronger regime for reducing emissions in mitigation but a voluntary regime which is less demanding on developed countries that are responsible for global warming," he added. "We represent a small country which has principles and will not sell our country and we speak with the peoples of the world. There is no consensus for approval of this document."
Espinosa in response said that the text was the result of collective work and the concerns of Bolivia would be reflected on the record. She then said that if there was no other opinion on this, the text would be approved. She gaveled and announced the adoption of the decision.
Solon took the floor again and said that consensus meant that no state was explicitly stating objection or rejection to the decision. He added: "You cannot say there is consensus. You can only take note. This is an attempt to violate rules of the Convention and the United Nations. Consensus is not by a majority. There must be an absence of explicit rejection of a decision. Despite our objection, the decision was adopted. We are going to apply to all international bodies to preserve the rules of consensus. We came here to negotiate and not to gavel an injustice. Not even in Copenhagen was this done and there was respect for the rule of consensus. The (Copenhagen) Presidency did not have the gall to hammer through a decision. Now there is a violation of rule. This is an unhappy conclusion. I ask you to review your decision and return to the path of law."
In response, Espinosa said that that on the matter of procedure, consensus did not mean unanimity, and far less does it mean the right of veto. At this point, she said that she could not disregard the request of 193 Parties to adopt the decision, which had been duly adopted.
The COP meeting
At the final session of the COP, Parties were asked to adopt the decision of the AWGLCA.
Bolivia, represented by Rene Orellana, said that his delegation had already given their arguments for why they could not agree to the forwarding of the proposed draft text for adoption of the COP at the meeting of the AWGLCA.
He said Bolivia had opposed the approval, as the text did not represent the discussions in which they had been engaged in. He stressed that Bolivia was in no way expressing the right of veto. Bolivia had asked for an opportunity to discuss issues with technical arguments, scientific data and legal arguments and not political positions. It said that it respected those who opposed its views but felt that its positions had not been properly considered. He asked the President to respect the formal mechanism for approval.
He said that in relation to the issue of technology transfer, Bolivia had wanted Parties to address the issue of intellectual property rights. As a compromise to the various proposals on IPRs on the table, Bolivia said that it had requested for at least a workshop be held and a process for discussions to begin in 2011 on the IPR issue. Even this basic proposal was disregarded and he questioned how democratic this process was. Bolivia wanted a formal process where doors were not closed to the proposals it had presented.
Espinosa said that the concerns of Bolivia would be reflected in the record of the COP and proceded to gavel the adoption of the agreement.
[Earlier, at the session of the AWGLCA (chaired by Margaret Mukahanana Sangarwe of Zimbabwe) to consider the draft text, Solon had elaborated on Bolivia's opposition. He said that Parties did not mandate anyone to produce the document, and that the August 13 text was the negotiating text which contained Parties' positions. On substance, Bolivia could not support the 2 degree C temperature goal as according to various studies, this would mean a 3 degree C situation for Africa. Referring to the IPCC fourth assessment report, a 2 degree C target would mean a 50% chance of stabilizing the climate and said that no one would send his or her child on a plane if it had a 50% chance of crashing.
[He referred to the text on the mitigation commitments of developed countries where paragraph 36 refers to taking note of "quantified economy wide emission reduction targets to be implemented by Annex 1 Parties as communicated by them and contained in a document FCCC/SB/2010/INF X." He said that this document was yet to exist and that it was not possible to have a decision that states that the list is to be drawn up later. He asked how much is the commitment of reductions and over what period of time and upon what baseline. "This is the crux and must be circulated so we know what is being listed. We cannot come here and have a blank cheque where the Annex 1 Parties fill up whatever they want which is not related to the shared vision."
[Solon said that on the financial mechanism, the text states that $100 billion per year would be mobilized by 2020 but does not state whether this will come from developed countries or from the carbon markets. Referring to the Green Climate Fund to be established, Solon said that however well designed a Fund is, it cannot be effective without funds. Further, the text invites the World Bank to serve as the interim trustee and Bolivia could not accept this as the Bank was an institution dominated by donors.
[On technology transfer, Solon said that the new Technology Executive Committee to be established is not even able to address IPR issues. He said that in most clean technologies, 70-80% of that is in the hands of developed counties and it is they who held the patents.]
Australia said that the package of decisions adopted in Cancun was a game changing moment for the climate regime. Pakistan said that the agreement reflected pragmatism and hope. It cannot satisfy all Parties but it was no doubt a decisive step to the future. It also stressed the need for a more solid outcome by adopting a second commitment period for Annex 1 Parties under the Kyoto Protocol.
Informal plenary of the COP/CMP (held before the formal meetings of the 2 working groups and of COP and CMP)
Bolivia said the documents did not include its proposals. The Kyoto Protocol paper did not guarantee a second commitment period. It implied a list of pledges that would lead to a 4 degree global temperature rise. It could not go along with a text with these two features, as it would make us responsible for genocide ecocide. The text allows the KP's market mechanisms to continue, whereas countries that do not accept a second commitment period of the KP should not be allowed to use flexibility mechanisms like emissions trade and Clean Development Mechanism. Bolivia would not accept a document, which means a temperature increase that puts human lives close to death. It had come here to guarantee a second KP period instead.
Grenada welcomed the texts for adoption saying that though the imperfect, the "perfect should not be enemy of the good." The Minister from Grenada said it was "not a done deal but we can say we leave Cancun with something we can live with."
Switzerland, speaking for the Environmental Integrity Group said that the solution was a compromise. Australia, indicating support for the AWGLCA outcome called it well-balanced
Nicaragua, (referring to Bolivia's concerns) said that it was important to make last efforts to hear positions of all Parties with flexibility and mutual understanding. Saudi Arabia agreed on the need for all Parties to be included to agree, and that the two working groups could discuss minor details and thus guarantee that all Parties can agree.
Lesotho for the LDCs said the package laid a good foundation for further work at the next COP in Durban. It supported the recognition for the adequate treatment of the issue of vulnerability, the adaptation framework and committee and the establishment of the Green Climate Fund and applauded the inclusion of LDCs in the Transitional Committee of the Fund.
Cuba, referring to the Bolivian leadership of President Evo Morales, said that it represents the demands of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. It said that Bolivia speaks on behalf of movements in Latin America and therefore deserves attention.
Cuba expressed dissatisfaction with the text of the AWGLCA. It said that the text did not have clear GHG emission reduction goals. Referring to the pledges under the Copenhagen Accord, it said that the emissions could rise by 6% compared to 1990 levels (taking into account the loopholes) and could lead to temperature rise of 2.5 to 5 degree C. It expressed profound concerns over the document. It said that it is key to have the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. On the issue of finance, it said the language in the document was ambiguous on the source of the $100 billion for the Green Climate Fund.
India's Minister of Environment, Jairam Ramesh quoted a Mexican hero for saying that Mexico is "far from God", but that coming from a country that had many Goddesses, he would say that tonight a Goddess has been present. He said Espinosa had restored confidence in the multilateral process at a time when confidence was at an historical low. He said that Parties could confidently look ahead and approach the challenge of climate change in a spirit of constructive compromise. He said that not all Parties had gained and that all had compromised. Espinosa in response said that Ramesh's proposals were key to unlocking difficult gridlocks in the negotiations.
Singapore said the text was not perfect but in any negotiations, not everyone will get what they want. It said that there were some missing elements that would need to be clarified. It said the document was not end but a step forward for a legally binding outcome in Durban.
EU Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard said that multilateralism had shown results. The EU came to Cancun hoping for a balanced package that has been achieved.
Bangladesh said that the text did not fully reflect the concerns of LDCs. Nevertheless, it was a good outcome as there was agreement on the Adaptation Framework and committee and the Green Climate Fund.
The US said that the text was not perfect but it provided a good basis to move forward. Parties had agreed to launch the Green Climate Fund; there was a technology mechanism and progress in adaptation and on the issue of reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD); and the anchoring of mitigation pledges and a system of MRV (measuring, reporting and verification) and an ICA (international consultations and analysis).
The Philippines commented on the process and said that there was confusion that enveloped the venues and postponement of meetings. It received the text with guarded optimism. It said that the Green Climate Fund was a progress. Kenya said that text was not perfect text but was a delicate balance.
China represented by Minister Xie Zhenhua said that Parties had demonstrated good political will for a balanced result. The texts provided a sound basis for future negotiations. There were short-comings but it was satisfied that the negotiations had adhered to the Bali Roadmap.
Afghanistan said that though it had concerns in relation to the issue of finance and the vulnerability of mountainous systems, it was flexible in making progress. Japan expressed support for the text.
Algeria on behalf of the African Group said that confidence in the multilateral system was shown. The text did not meet all its expectations but it could support it.
Ecuador said that it did not like all the results and said that Parties must redouble their efforts to ensure the health of the planet. It stressed the need for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol to be confirmed and to come into effect after 2012. It said that the Green Fund should be established and for effective technology transfer, it was important to have flexibilities as regards IPRs. It supported the observations of Bolivia on the various deficiencies in the text and said that it must be improved.
Zambia thanked Mexico for lifting the spirits from the depression of Copenhagen and for restoring confidence in the multilateral process.
Brazil said that the document was balanced in essence although not perfect and there was a sense of realism and pragmatism.
--
Miguel Valencia
ECOMUNIDADES
martes, 14 de diciembre de 2010
[Descrecimiento] Recobrar el Sentido
Recobrar el sentido
Gustavo Esteva
Lunes 13 de diciembre de 2010
Cancún era la última llamada… y fracasó. Podemos aún sacar provecho del episodio si nos atrevemos a derivar de él las lecciones pertinentes: dejar de pedir peras al olmo y pretender que somos Dios.
Hace 20 años los ambientalistas forzaron a Naciones Unidas a organizar la Cumbre de la Tierra. Se congregaron en Río, en 1992, 120 jefes de Estado, ocho mil delegados oficiales y un sinfín de ecologistas y periodistas. Una imagen trató de captar el resultado: la función de teatro siguió adelante mientras el Titanic se hundía. La conferencia, como señaló oportunamente The Ecologist, afianzó la mitología ecológica dominante, hizo visibles los intereses creados que impiden aliviar los males actuales y puso la Iglesia en manos de Lutero. "Tras llegar a la cumbre, todo camino es descenso", observó entonces Juan José Consejo, uno de los más reconocidos ecologistas mexicanos. Era una advertencia y un recuento. Advirtió a los ecologistas interesados en patrones de vida más sensatos que seguir empleando el emblema que los unía podría llevar agua a un molino que ya no era el suyo. Y mostró que muchas políticas y acciones que pretenden cuidar la ecología la destruyen.
No aprendimos lo suficiente. Seguimos mirando hacia arriba. Kyoto era un paso tímido en la dirección correcta, pero nunca consiguió cabalmente su propósito. Hubo en Cochabamba, en la Cumbre de los Pueblos, propuestas sumamente interesantes, pero Cancún no las tomó en cuenta ni pudo superar el fracaso de Copenhague. Como señaló Vía Campesina, hubiera sido preferible no tener acuerdo alguno a conseguir uno tan malo.
Como es costumbre, se realizó en paralelo a la conferencia oficial otra reunión: el Foro Internacional por la Justicia Climática, convocado por cientos de organizaciones. Su Declaración de Cancún es un documento más valioso que el torrente retórico de la conferencia, pero su contenido es ambiguo. Su lema, "Cambiemos el sistema, no el planeta", pone el dedo en la llaga. La declaración desnuda el carácter de las propuestas oficiales, encerradas en el "ecologismo de mercado", y muestra cómo producirán lo contrario de lo que pretenden. Hace propuestas sensatas: abandonar el desarrollismo, establecer límites, concentrarse en los espacios locales, recuperar tradiciones válidas. Todo esto, sin embargo, sigue atrapado en la mentalidad dominante: se cuelga aún de los aparatos institucionales y de la trampa intelectual y política del diagnóstico, un carapacho que funciona como lápida de nuestros sueños de transformación.
Afirmar o negar el cambio climático implica que conocemos bien el planeta, sabemos cómo reacciona y disponemos de los remedios técnicos apropiados. Puro disparate. Soberbia insoportable.
Seguir confiando en las instituciones significa actuar contra toda experiencia y concentrar la energía en el lugar equivocado. Hay luchas que librar, sin duda. Celebremos, por ejemplo, la que llevó al recién firmado acuerdo de Nagoya, en que 193 miembros de Naciones Unidas crearon una moratoria de hecho contra proyectos y aventuras de geoingeniería y condenaron todo intento de manipular el "termostato planetario". Pero hemos de hacerlo sin rendir nuestra voluntad a los administradores gubernamentales del capital, que seguirán dedicados a la protección de sus privilegios.
Las formulaciones dominantes, epistemológicamente frágiles, conducen a la parálisis. Aunque Evos Morales gobernaran en todo el planeta, no podrían arreglarlo. Hasta los gobiernos más majestuosos están en manos de mortales ordinarios, y todos se hallan entrampados en entresijos burocráticos y tejidos de intereses que atan manos, cabezas y voluntades hasta de los más ilustres.
Necesitamos dar suelo social y político a nuestras hipótesis, para encontrarnos hacia abajo y a la izquierda en la realidad de la transformación necesaria. Por ejemplo:
No debemos generar basura. Más que reciclarla, necesitamos desde rechazar empaques de plástico hasta abandonar el retrete inglés, un hábito pernicioso que consume 40 por ciento del agua disponible para uso doméstico y genera un coctel venenoso que contamina todo a su paso.
En vez de movernos como locos en vehículos contaminantes, debemos recuperar la automovilidad de las piernas, a pie o en bicicleta. Eso es vivir de otra manera, en otro sistema, como lo es comer, beber, vestir, habitar… con sensatez.
Los ejemplos son interminables. Si formulamos en esos términos las cuestiones urgentes, enfrentarlas está en nuestras manos, no en las de instancias globales que nunca harán lo que se requiere… ni pueden ser Dios, aunque lo pretendan. Ha llegado la hora de cambiar el sistema, no el planeta, como se dijo en Cancún. Eso depende de nosotros, no de quienes derivan de él dignidad e ingreso. Quienes salían de Cancún, observó Leonardo Boff, iban muy descontentos con el resultado, pero decididos al fin a tomar el asunto en sus manos.
lunes, 13 de diciembre de 2010
LA FARSA GREENPEACE Y REDD PLUS. Salir de la economía, el camino
GREEN PEACE Y REDD PLUS
Kamil Nadoo, director ejecutivo de Greenpeace Internacional, ratificó en el Klimaforum10 de Cancun la ambiguedad de esta organización frente al polemico programa REDD PLUS, impulsado en esta cumbre por los paises poderosos y sus testaferros en los paises más sometidos por ellos, como México o Etiopía. Confirmó que han aceptado este programa que en lo personal detestan, con el proposito de controlar los daños que puede causar, a pesar del gran rechazo que han manifestado por este programa las redes indigenas y campesinas internacionales con mayor autonomía y representatividad, como la Indigenous Environmental Network o La Vía Campesina, cuyos representantes en Cancun y nosotros mismos, gritamos en sus calles ¡Cochabamba Si, REDD No!. La ambiguedad de Greenpeace frente al programa REDD PLUS ha sido la misma que ha manifestado el espacio ESMEX- Dialogo Climático que ha unficado en Cancun a las grandes ONGS verdes, los Big Greens como: WWF, OXFAM, Heinrich Boell, Friends of the Earth y a la mayor parte de los ambientalistas mexicanos. Confirmamos asi la validez de los motivos que justificaron la existencia del Klimaforum10: en las cumbres climáticas, como la COP-16, se necesitan espacios políticos donde puedan respirar las ideas de la base social y de las organizaciones autónomas. Klimaforum10 rechazó al programa REDD PLUS desde enero de 2010, cuando lanzamos esta iniciativa.
SALIR DE LA ECONOMÍA, EL CAMINO
El sistema nos atrapa por medio del empleo, las escuelas, las universidades,el crédito, las clínicas, los hospitales, los transportes, los autos, los celulares, el agua embotellada, Wal Mart, las certificaciones, los registros, la comida rápida, el dólar; el sistema funciona como un autómata fuera del control de la sociedad, esclavizando a la población y destruyendo el tejido social; es la economía que impone sus leyes, destruye a las culturas y depreda los mares, los bosques, las selvas, las ciudades. No es posible frenar esta destrucción social y ambiental sin salir del sistema, sin salir de la economía. No es posible conservar el equilibrio mental y espiritual sin abandonar la religión de la economía, sin recuperar el reino de la gratuidad y resignificar el tiempo y el espacio. Cultivar colectivamente nuestros alimentos puede ser un buen camino para salir de la economía. Es indispensable consumir lo que se produce en la ecorregion y producir lo que en ella se consume.
ACELERAR LA TRANSICIÓN, REDUCCIÓN RADICAL EN EL CONSUMO LOCAL DE ENERGÍA
El fin del petróleo barato y el cambio climático alteran profundamente el equilibrio político del mundo, al destruir las bases de la economía nacional y del sistema jurídico mundial. Una crisis coral invade al mundo y abre las posibilidades de una transformación de la sociedad que puede ser muy dolorosa para la gran mayoria de la población. Desaparece el empleo, el estado benefactor y las monedas fuertes; se multiplican las migraciones, las medidas de seguridad y las militarizaciones. Los paises poderosos radicalizan sus acciones depredadoras, con la mira en el rescate del crecimiento economico. Dejar los combustibles fósiles bajo tierra, salir de la era petrolera en el menor tiempo posible, es el mejor camino frente a la amenaza de nuevas formas de violencia, como la que viven México, Nigeria y Afganistán.Convocar a los vecinos de ejidos, barrios y colonias, para estudiar las formas de reducir a la mitad o dos terceras partes el consumo local de gas, gasolina, electricidad, agua, y productos indutrializados, puede ayudar a enfrentar con menor sufrimiento los efectos de la crisis económica y ambiental. Las crisis deberían ser enfrentadas colectiva mente, no individualmente
--
Miguel Valencia
ECOMUNIDADES
viernes, 10 de diciembre de 2010
REDD+ EL MÁS GRANDE ROBO DE TIERRAS DE LA HISTORIA
Puerto Morelos, Quintana Roo, a 8 de diciembre de 2010.
REDD+ EL MÁS GRANDE ROBO DE TIERRAS DE LA HISTORIA.
Los bosques, la deforestación y la reducción de gases y humos con efectos climáticos han sido parte de las grandes discusiones de las cumbres climáticas. Los gobiernos, el Banco Mundial y los grandes inversionistas se han percatado de la importancia política de estos temas desde hace mucho tiempo. Urgidos de conceptos y programas que les permitan disfrazar y continuar sus negocios como siempre lo han hecho, lanzando humos y gases a la atmosfera, estos políticos han concebido un nuevo mecanismo de mercado que incluye a estos temas como elementos centrales y han creado el programa REDD+ que procuran imponer en la COP16 de Cancún; este programa contiene elementos que les permiten ocultar sus actividades con efectos climáticos por medio de acciones que presumen reducirlas al aparentar compensarlas con sumideros de carbono (bosques) en los países pobres; compensan los gases y humos que lanzan a la atmósfera los países ricos con los que supuestamente capturan en los bosques de los países pobres. Además este programa también les abre formidables perspectivas de negocio, de engaño y sometimiento de la sociedad. Con el programa REDD+ será posible no solamente fingir que se reducen las emisiones de gases y humos, sino también tomar el control y propiedad de los bosques del mundo, así como cooptar y sobornar ONG's y organizaciones sociales del mundo. De esta forma los gobiernos poderosos se apropian de las acciones que pretender hacer frente al cambio climático sin resolver el problema en lo absoluto, crean una nueva falsa solución al tiempo que trafican con el "aire caliente" y con los bosques del mundo. NO AL PROGRAMA REDD+.
COMITE ORGANIZADOR DEL KLIMAFORUM10.
--
ATTE:
"Cambiemos el sistema - No el clima"
Prensa - Klimaforum10
skype: prensakf10
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)