(June 17*) Bolivia’s Indigenous social movements call for urgent action at UNFCCC talks in Bonn, Germany

JUNE 17, 2011 · 1:52 AM

Instead of trying to agree on a global deal that will actually stop climate change, governments are more worried about privatising Mother Earth.

Press Conference Webcast:

http://unfccc2.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/110606_SB34/templ/play.php?id_kongresssession=3622&theme=unfccc

“Our Mother Earth is ill. The development model of unlimited economic growth and overconsumption has broken the balance between human beings and the environment” said indigenous leader Rafael Quispe.

“The countries negotiating in Bonn for the last two weeks are out of touch with reality. Climate change is affecting us now with more floods and draughts. As indigenous peoples we are one of the groups most vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change”.

“Unless the peoples of the world unite the consequences of climate change will be much worse”, said indigenous leader Lauriano Pari.

“We call on Annex 1 parties to sign a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in Durban that is legally binding, coercive and with the capacity to penalise Parties. We reject the attempt by developed countries to prolong the life of the Protocol to then replace it in 2020 by a treaty that merges the Kyoto Protocol with the Long-Term Group on Cooperative Action.”, underlined Lauriano Pari.

The Developed countries and their allies are not serious about reducing their emissions. They want to use existing markets and create new ones to pay others so that they take no action to confront the climate crisis. And now they want to put a price on “blue carbon” in the oceans.

All outcomes of the Kyoto Protocol must recognize and respect the rights of native indigenous peoples, consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and with the right to consultation and free, prior and informed consent.

“In order to achieve a net reduction of carbon emissions REDD plus cannot be financed by market-based mechanisms or used in carbon offsetting. Instead funds should come from developed countries and innovative funding sources should be explored. For example, by establishing a new mechanism for a tax on financial transactions that would generate funds without any conditionality”, added Lauriano Pari.

Forests are not providers of environmental services as some United Nations agencies and NGOs see them. Forests have multiple values, uses and functions and shall not be considered only as carbon sinks. There needs to be a study on the potential impact of issuing emission-reduction certificates on the rights of indigenous peoples, in particular the impact on land rights, collective rights, and traditional livelihoods.

“It is clear the current proposals on the table in the climate change negotiations are not enough to stop climate change. We propose the model of living well in harmony with Mother Earth as the way forward to re-establish the balance between humans and nature. We believe Mother Earth has rights. She owns us. We do not own her. This is why we have developed a proposal for a Law of Mother Earth that will be approved soon in Bolivia”, said Rafael Quispe.

Notes to editors: A webcast of the full press conference at Bonn UN climate change talks is available here

Retrieved from http://climate-connections.org/2011/06/17/bolivias-indigenous-social-movements-call-for-urgent-action-at-unfccc-talks-in-bonn-germany/

* color added by the blogger

*(June 10*) CLIMATE JUSTICE FOR SUSTAINABLE PEACE IN AFRICA - A message from African faith leaders to the COP17

by We Have Faith - Act Now for Climate Justice on Friday, June 10, 2011 at 2:17am

A message from African faith leaders to the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), from 29 November – 9 December 2011 in Durban, South Africa.

You must treat the earth well. It was not given to you by your parents. It is loaned to you by your children. – Kikuyu proverb

Introduction

Africa is a continent of the faithful. We gathered as African faith leaders at UNEP in Nairobi, Kenya on 7th and 8th June 2011, to discuss climate change and how it will be addressed at COP17.

Scientific reports indicate that climate change may well be the greatest threat that humanity has ever faced, with, on current targets, probable increased global warming of 2.5⁰C to 4⁰C by 2100[i] – widely agreed to be disastrous. Yet progress in international negotiations has not matched the scale of the crisis. There appears to be a deadlock between competing political and economic interests from various power blocs. We believe that to break this deadlock, new perspectives are required.

Firstly, economic and political processes have to be based on ecological principles, and not vice versa. There can be no infinite economic or population growth on a finite planet.

Secondly, there is a profound need for a renewed moral vision for the future of humanity and indeed of all life. We debase human beings by seeing them only as economic instruments, and debase the sanctity of life by commodifying it.

We must realise that well-being cannot be equated with material wealth. The quality of life is not dependent on the quantity of material things or growth measured by GDP. Instead, our standard of living depends on our standard of loving and sharing. We cannot sustain a world dominated by profit-seeking, rampant consumerism and gross inequalities, and an atmosphere of competition where the powerful take advantage of the weak without caring for the well-being of every form of life. Development cannot be sustained if the affluent project themselves as examples to be copied by everyone else, and if the poor model their lifestyles on such examples.

These insights draw from the rich moral and spiritual traditions on our continent and elsewhere in the world. Despite the historical violence and disorganisation that Africa has suffered and inflicted on itself, these insights have been transmitted to us by our ancestors who believed in the harmony of vital forces, between human beings and the rest of creation.

In our African spiritual heritage and our diverse faith traditions, trees, flowers, water, soil and animals have always been essential companions of human beings, without which life and being are inconceivable. We express this in different ways through our understanding of the world as God’s own beloved creation, and our sense of place and vocation within it.

Our ways of thinking and feeling deeply influence the world around us. As we find compassion, peace and harmony within ourselves, we will begin to treat the Earth with respect, resist disorder and live in peace with each other, including embracing a binding climate treaty. We pray that compassion will guide these negotiations.

1. 2. Our commitments as faith leaders

Our African people and nations have to overcome the temptation of seeing ourselves as victims, who have no role and responsibility to play in reversing the current situation – we are part of the solution.

As African faith leaders, our responsibilities will be to:

• Set a good example for our faith communities by examining our personal needs and reducing unsustainable consumption.
• Lead local communities to understand the threat of climate change and the need to build economies and societies based on a revitalised moral vision.
• Draw on our spiritual resources to foster crucial ecological virtues such as wisdom, justice, courage and temperance, and to confront vices such as greed in our own midst.
• Acknowledge that climate change has greatly affected already vulnerable people (such as women, children, the elderly, the poor and the disabled), that it worsens existing inequalities and that this places an obligation on faith groups to stand in solidarity with the victims of climate change disasters, showing care, compassion and love.
• Plant indigenous trees and promote ecological restoration.

1. 3. Our message to all world leaders

As citizens, we are asked to put our trust in representatives at COP17 to decide upon our common future. We have no doubt that the Durban COP must decide on a treaty – and second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol – that is fair, ambitious and legally binding, to ensure the survival of coming generations.

We therefore call on you to:

• Commit to the principle of inter-generational equity, the rights of our children for generations to come, and to the rights of Mother Earth as outlined in the Cochabamba declaration.
• Refute the myth that action to cut emissions is too expensive, when it is far cheaper than the long-term costs of inaction.
• Acknowledge that investments in sustainability are a better guarantor of peace than military spending.
• Abandon Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of prosperity in favour of indicators that include human wellbeing, equality and the external environmental costs of human economies.
• Set clear final targets for phasing out the use of all fossil fuels, and deep interim reductions in carbon emissions that support the target of no more than one degree of global warming.
• Ensure that there is sufficient climate finance for adaptation in Africa, additional to existing development aid and that it is governed inclusively and equitably under the United Nations.
• Channel sufficient and predictable climate finance and technology from the historic polluting nations, in recognition of their ecological debt, to enable Africa to leapfrog into an age of clean energy technology.
• Close the gap between wealthy countries’ pledges to cut warming emissions and what science and equity require.
• Assign for wealthy countries emission quotas that are consistent with the full measure of their historical responsibility.

1. 4. Our message to Africa’s political leaders

We further urge African political leaders, as many of you are members of our faith communities, to take these particular measures:

• · To regain a united voice and abandon expedient allegiances with blocs that are scrambling to appropriate Africa’s natural resources.
• · Recognise in all policy statements that our long-term social and economic interests require the stability of our biophysical environment today.
• · Prioritise measures and adopt policies to resolve environmental degradation in our nations.

• Acknowledge and pre-empt the violence at all levels that climate change and environmental degradation is already fueling on the continent.
• Adopt and enact land policies that ensure equity and justice for all.
• Resist the approval of transactions with exploitative corporations that would cause serious environmental damage.
• Promote indigenous tree planting and protection of existing forests, lakes and rivers.
• Build much greater capacity within long-standing teams of climate negotiators.
• Greatly improve communications within and between African governments, and consultation with civil society, including faith communities, on issues of climate change.

1. Conclusion

Every human generation is faced by particular challenges and opportunities. If we do not secure a stable climate for the sake of future generations, we will be held accountable by them and judged by history.

On this very critical issue of climate change, we must not fail. Every lost moment increases an irreversible threat to life on Earth.

8 June 2011:– This communique was compiled jointly by 130 faith leaders representing Muslim, Christian, Hindu, African traditional, Bahá'í and Buddhist communities from 30 countries across Africa.

For more information, please contact:

Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI):

Bishop Geoff Davies (Cape Town): +27 83 754 5275, geoff.davies@safcei.org.za,www.safcei.org.za

All Africa Conference of Churches (AACC):

Rev. Dr. Andre Karamaga (Nairobi): (254-20) 4441483, k.andre@aacc-ceta.org

www.aacc-ceta.org

Programme for Christian-Muslim Relations in Africa (PROCMURA):

Rev Dr Johnson Mbillah (Nairobi): generaladviser@procmura.org

www.procmura.org

[i] Joeri Rogel, Claudine Chen, Julia Nabel and others, “Analysis of the Copenhagen Accord pledges and its global climatic impacts— a snapshot of dissonant ambitions”, Environmental Research Letters 5 (2010).

Retrieved form http://www.facebook.com/notes/we-have-faith-act-now-for-climate-justice/climate-justice-for-sustainable-peace-in-africa-a-message-from-african-faith-lea/203795679664740

* color and emphasis added by the blogger

(Apr 26*) Rising seas scariest climate impact: Nauru's Moses

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO | Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:46pm EDT

(Reuters) - Sea level rise is the "most terrifying" impact of climate change and rich countries are showing scant leadership in addressing the threats, the incoming chair of a U.N. alliance of small island states said on Tuesday.

Marlene Moses, the U.N. ambassador of the Pacific island state of Nauru, the world's smallest republic, urged developed countries to do far more to cut their greenhouse gas emissions and to provide climate aid to developing states.

Nauru was chosen on Tuesday to take over from Grenada in late 2011 as chair of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), a 43-member group whose members from the Caribbean to the Indian Ocean are especially at risk from rising seas.

"It's the most terrifying of all climate change impacts," Moses told Reuters in a telephone interview. "I once said that climate change is as big a threat to security as an invading army. Sea level rise will force people to relocate."

She faulted rich nations for failing to do enough.

"We are really waiting for a leader to emerge from the developed world," she said. "We are going through not only a climate crisis but also a leadership crisis. This is holding up the multilateral process."

She said Nauru's 10,000 people, living on a rocky island of 21 sq kms (8 sq miles) in the western Pacific, were primarily at risk from disruptions to water supplies, erosion and damage to the ocean exacerbated by climate change.

"But for low-lying atolls -- the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Tuvalu, sea level rise is really a threat. Relocation is a threat. It is imminent," she said of the risks that states could be swamped by rising seas.

ANTARCTICA, GREENLAND

She said many scientific projections were for sea level rise of a meter (3 ft) or more by 2100.

Sea levels rose about 17 cms in the 20th century and the U.N. panel of climate scientists said in 2007 they could rise this century by between 18 and 59 cms, before accounting for risks of a faster thaw of Antarctica or Greenland.

Priorities for AOSIS under Nauru's three-year chairmanship would be an extension of the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, the U.N. plan which obliges almost 40 developed nations to cut emissions by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels from 2008 to 2012.

Japan, Russia and Canada have said they will not sign up for an extension of Kyoto, arguing that all big emitters including China and India have instead to agree to a new U.N. pact beyond 2012. Developing nations have no binding targets under Kyoto.

Nauru would also push for more climate finance from developed nations, which have set a goal of providing at least $100 billion a year from 2020 to help the poor limit their emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

"Things are not moving as fast as we want them to," she said of climate finance. Nauru itself has not received any cash under so-called "fast-start" funds of almost $30 billion for 2010-12, she said.

AOSIS under Nauru's leadership would also urge the rich to make deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions than planned. Among other AOSIS priorities are for the U.N. negotiations to develop new insurance mechanisms to help protect vulnerable nations.

(Editing by Janet Lawrence)

Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-climate-nauru-idUSTRE73P6TU20110426

* color and emphasis added by the blogger

(May 6*) Teens sue state and feds over climate inaction

iMatter has burst onto the climate scene with a bang. The new youth-led campaign is organizing Mother's Day marches on several continents. They also sued the federal government and the state of California earlier this week. The plaintiffs, who are mostly teenagers, charge that by failing to act on climate change the state and federal government have violated the public trust doctrine that requires them to preserve basic shared resources for future generations. Suits are also being filed against all of the other states.

"Young people will be affected most by climate change and by our government's inaction," explained iMatter's 16-year-old founder Alec Loorz.

The legal principle of public trust has existed since Roman times and has been invoked in environmental cases including the one regarding Mono Lake.

Even so, the plaintiffs' attorney Sharon Duggan claims the suit is groundbreaking. "No climate litigation in the past has ever gone back to the first principal that the government must protect the public trust," she said. "The large body of litigation brought under environmental statutes is too narrow for the crisis at hand. [This is] the most common sense, fundamental legal footing for the protection of our planet."

The New York Times suggests at least the case against the federal government is not likely to succeed. But with 51 public trust suits following on the heels of the public nuisance suit brought by several states, the courts will have make a series of rulings about climate change — and the issue will remain in the news.

An iMatter march will take place in San Francisco this Sunday at 1 p.m., leaving from Justin Herman Plaza.

Posted By: Cameron Scott (Email, Twitter, Facebook) | May 06 2011 at 09:38 AM

Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/green/detail?entry_id=88480

* color added by the blogger

(May 3*) Some Analysis of the Canadian Elections

Judy Rebick

May 3rd, 2011

It was an extraordinary election. Both Stephen Harper and Jack Layton got the results they were aiming for. Stephen Harper got his majority and Jack Layton replaced the Liberal Party not only as the Official Opposition but quite possibly as the only federal alternatives to the Harperites. Canada now looks like so many other countries with one party on the Right and one on the Left. So why do I feel so bad?

Firstly, a government that has shown its contempt of democracy in a myriad of ways, not the least lying to Parliament about its spending, won a majority of seats. Now they have no structural limits on their power. True an NDP opposition is a major improvement over a Liberal opposition but a majority government that barely listened to the Opposition when it was in the minority will ignore the Opposition in majority.

Secondly, most of the NDP seats came from defeating the Bloc Quebecois, also a social democratic party. So the 102 NDP Members of Parliament replace a combination of 83 social democratic members in the last Parliament, less dramatic than it appears. The Bloc members were mostly very effective advocates in Parliament, most of the NDP members from Quebec are unknown. Everyone in English Canada talks about a split between the NDP and the Liberals but the NDP and the Bloc are much closer politically. A major weakness of the social democratic left in Canada is its fierce identification with the federalist cause against the self-determination of Quebec, stopping most progressive people in Canada from seeing their obvious commonalities with the Quebecois and vice versa.

On the other hand, having an NDP caucus that is half Quebecois can bring together the concerns of progressive in Quebec and English Canada . That could be a good thing. However, today on Democracy Now, [2] Stephen Lewis declared the NDP victory in Quebec a blow to “separatism,” which is exactly the wrong way to see it. What it seems to be is a desire of the people of Quebec, including sovereigntists to stop a Harper majority, as well as a fatigue with the same old Bloc Quebecois and a genuine affection for Jack Layton. We should be thanking them. [3]

An NDP opposition also gives social movements much more voice in Parliament. For example, Jack Layton and much of his caucus are strong feminists. Support for feminist and LGBT rights are bred in the bone for them and they have strong links with those social movements. Jack has often spoken at anti-war rallies and should be willing to call for a federal inquiry into the G20 repression.

My major worry about the Harper government is not that they will go after abortion and gay rights because that would wreck the coalition they have built with Progressive Conservatives and probably with some of their corporate support. My major concerns are to do with the environment, Indigenous Rights, privatization, war, criminalization of poverty and dissent, cuts to funding for arts and culture and of course democracy itself.

An NDP opposition should also impact positively on the mainstream media, which has moved so far to the right in recent years, without a single left-wing voice outside of the Toronto Star and me on Q. More left wing voices in mainstream media, means Canadians will hear more of the actual debate between Left and Right particularly on economic and environmental issues.

The mobilization of citizen groups, especially youth, was extraordinary during the election and bodes well for the future. Even if it didn’t have a major impact on voter turnout, it did have an impact on framing the debate and no doubt on the NDP high numbers, in Ontario and BC. Most importantly, a new generation of young people have gotten a taste of activism and hopefully will continue. Lead Now [4], one of the most effective and impressive groups plan to continue and build a progressive political movement.

The debate about strategic voting was fierce in the last days of the campaign. I don’t consider the Liberal Party to be in any way on the Left. On economic issues they are no different than the Tories. The dramatic cuts to social programmes that opened up the gap between rich and poor were mostly carried out by Paul Martin. However in this election there was a difference because the Liberals support democracy. However, as soon as the NDP surge in Quebec started, it made little sense to vote Liberal strategically since no-one else would be doing it. If you look at the ridings the Conservatives picked up in Ontario, there were three way splits, where there had been just Liberal/Tory contests before. There is no guarantee the people who voted NDP would have voted Liberal this time. And there is evidence that right-wing Liberals voted Conservative to stop the NDP. Moreover, the people who check into strategic voting sites are not numerous enough when spread across ridings for strategic voting to work unless the parties are on side.

You may disagree with my analysis about strategic voting but please do not blame the NDP for the election results. The NDP ran a good campaign and won people’s support with their policies and Jack’s personality. That is what parties are supposed to do. The people of Canada rejected Ignatieff and the Liberals. Whether that will be permanent remains to be seen. If you want to blame someone, blame both the opposition parties for refusing to co-operate electorally to defeat Harper.

In 2001 the New Politics Initiative [5] proposed a new party based on a fusion with the Greens and the NDP and closers ties to the then rising anti-globalization movement. The NDP now has a chance to create a more vibrant party of the Left by working closely with Elizabeth May, the first Green elected member in North America, and what’s left of the Bloc in Parliament and by speaking for those who have had so little voice over the last fifteen years. I hope they do it.

And whether they do depends on how much pressure is on them from outside of Parliament. As Tria Donaldson, a youth activist said ,” we need to raise a little hell. [6]” We need strong extra parliamentary movements that rely on the kind of grass roots mobilization we saw during the election since state funding will no longer be available for anyone who is really challenging the government. People of my generation need to step aside and make space for young people to provide leadership to these movements. For too long, progressive social groups and unions have relied on old tactics and old methods, talking to each other. We need to link up with the most vulnerable people in society who are mostly racialized in the big cities and live in places like the 905 around Toronto. One positive element of this election is that the divisions between left and right in a lot of communities of colour was much more clearly articulated in this election through initiatives like the “go ethnics go” [7] video.

Building much broader support for and profile to the Indigenous struggles [8] to defend their land against the tar sands, mining and clear cutting will also be key. The environmental and social justice movements are coming together globally through initiatives like the Cochabamba Accord and the UN Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth. [9] Environmental destruction and its defence internationally will continue to be a major feature of the Harper government.

Finally, we need to build links again between Quebec and English Canada. Last week-end I attended a conference in Montreal that included people both from Quebec and English Canada on climate justice. It was the first Canada/Quebec conference I had attended in years. In the 1980′s we built strong alliances with Quebec against free trade. Now we must rebuild those alliances to fight the attacks of the Harper government. That way if the Parti Quebecois wins the next election in Quebec, which is very likely, the chasm that always grows between Quebec and English Canada when sovereignty is on the agenda can be narrowed.

And as far as the movement for proportional representation goes Fair Vote Canada has already published the results [10]if some form of proportional voting had been in place. It would have been a minority Conservative government with the NDP in second place. The bad news is that both the Conservatives and the NDP benefited from the First Past the Post system so don’t look for changes any time soon despite the fact that Harper used to support PR and as far as I know Jack still does.

That’s my take the day after elxn41.

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Retrieved from http://www.actforclimatejustice.org/2011/05/some-analysis-of-the-canadian-elections-2/

* color added by the blogger

Kids vs the government

Kids are taking action on climate change and climate justice!

http://imattermarch.org/lawsuit/

(Apr 26) Rising seas scariest climate impact: Nauru's Moses

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent OSLO | Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:46pm EDT

(Reuters) - Sea level rise is the "most terrifying" impact of climate change and rich countries are showing scant leadership in addressing the threats, the incoming chair of a U.N. alliance of small island states said on Tuesday.

Marlene Moses, the U.N. ambassador of the Pacific island state of Nauru, the world's smallest republic, urged developed countries to do far more to cut their greenhouse gas emissions and to provide climate aid to developing states.

Nauru was chosen on Tuesday to take over from Grenada in late 2011 as chair of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), a 43-member group whose members from the Caribbean to the Indian Ocean are especially at risk from rising seas.

"It's the most terrifying of all climate change impacts," Moses told Reuters in a telephone interview. "I once said that climate change is as big a threat to security as an invading army. Sea level rise will force people to relocate."

She faulted rich nations for failing to do enough.

"We are really waiting for a leader to emerge from the developed world," she said. "We are going through not only a climate crisis but also a leadership crisis. This is holding up the multilateral process."

She said Nauru's 10,000 people, living on a rocky island of 21 sq kms (8 sq miles) in the western Pacific, were primarily at risk from disruptions to water supplies, erosion and damage to the ocean exacerbated by climate change.

"But for low-lying atolls -- the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Tuvalu, sea level rise is really a threat. Relocation is a threat. It is imminent," she said of the risks that states could be swamped by rising seas.

ANTARCTICA, GREENLAND She said many scientific projections were for sea level rise of a meter (3 ft) or more by 2100.

Sea levels rose about 17 cms in the 20th century and the U.N. panel of climate scientists said in 2007 they could rise this century by between 18 and 59 cms, before accounting for risks of a faster thaw of Antarctica or Greenland.

Priorities for AOSIS under Nauru's three-year chairmanship would be an extension of the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, the U.N. plan which obliges almost 40 developed nations to cut emissions by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels from 2008 to 2012.

Japan, Russia and Canada have said they will not sign up for an extension of Kyoto, arguing that all big emitters including China and India have instead to agree to a new U.N. pact beyond 2012. Developing nations have no binding targets under Kyoto.

Nauru would also push for more climate finance from developed nations, which have set a goal of providing at least $100 billion a year from 2020 to help the poor limit their emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change."Things are not moving as fast as we want them to," she said of climate finance. Nauru itself has not received any cash under so-called "fast-start" funds of almost $30 billion for 2010-12, she said.

AOSIS under Nauru's leadership would also urge the rich to make deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions than planned. Among other AOSIS priorities are for the U.N. negotiations to develop new insurance mechanisms to help protect vulnerable nations.

(Editing by Janet Lawrence)

Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-climate-nauru-idUSTRE73P6TU20110426