Today, I spent an hour with a large group of teacher candidates (around 400 plus people) talking about climate justice. I was invited to present to the group on the Council’s experiences in Copenhagen as part of the climate justice movement. My presentation was part of the final session of 8 classes comprising a social justice module within a larger required course called professional foundations.
Here are some highlights from my presentation and the subsequent discussion.
I chose to focus on 3 main arguments for why Copenhagen was significant.
The first reason focussed on was the gravity of the climate crisis. I used this as an opportunity to underscore the fact that global average temperatures are rising, glaciers are melting and we are witnessing rising sea levels. In the face of the recent media flurry suggesting there are holes in climate science, reasserting that global warming and climate change are real and impacting peoples lives is important. While climate science should be subject to debate and discussion, the current flurry is suggesting this somehow means there is less consensus on human induced climate change as opposed to debating the validity of certain studies or models and questions of how quickly climate change is and will occur if we don’t reduce emissions.
The second reason I argued Copenhagen was significant is because it was meant to usher in a new phase of international action on climate change; the Copenhagen negotiations were meant to be the end point of a 2 year negotiation process. Here I talked about what was on the table including climate mitigation and climate adaptation, addressing deforestation and low carbon technology transfer.
Climate mitigation includes agreeing on emission targets for a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol (first phase of emission target commitments under the Kyoto Protocol will end in 2012). Climate adaptation includes appropriate financing for actions that help to adapt to climate change impacts both current and unavoidable.
Recognizing the need for climate mitigation and adaptation inevitably leads to the question of who is responsible for doing what – the source of much debate in the Bella Centre (where the negotiations took place).
Here I introduced the concept of climate justice.
It is the people least responsible for climate change who are being hit hardest by its impacts, while contributing the least to its causes. Global North countries which represent less than one fifth of the world’s population are responsible for emitting more than two-thirds of historic GHG emissions into an atmosphere all life shares.
By overusing and diminishing the planet’s capacity to absorb GHGs, global North countries have created an “emissions debt.” This means that global North countries have a responsibility to take on deeper emission reductions. In Copenhagen, we were calling on industrialized countries (or Annex 1 countries under the Kyoto Protocol) to commit to emission reductions of at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.
Climate change impacts caused as a result of these emissions has created an “adaptation debt,” which global North countries need to repay through climate financing. In Copenhagen, we called for climate financing that was new and additional to existing forms of development associated financing and that it be democratically managed under the UNFCCC, not through the World Bank. Canada’s fair contribution to climate adaptation funding for the global South has been estimated at $4 billion yearly.
In making this argument about the significance of Copenhagen, I also talked about the Copenhagen Accord. Rather then get into details here, check out this cartoon – it says it all: http://www.seattlepi.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=2014
Also, there are a number of blogs on our climate justice webpage about the results of the Copenhagen negotiations and Canada’s role as an eco-outlaw including refusing to adopt needed emission reduction targets and commitments to climate financing: www.canadians.org/climatejustice
Finally, I argued that Copenhagen was significant because it represented a pivotal moment for the climate justice movement. Building on the arguments brought forward in the op-ed Maude and I authored for the Ottawa Citizen, “Why we took to the streets” I made the argument that at the alternative peoples summit (Klimaforum), in the streets of Copenhagen, and to some extent, within the confines of the Bella Centre, climate justice was also being seen as part of a broader movement for justice.
Here the climate crisis is identified as a symptom of more systemic problems rooted in over production, over consumption and trade driven by a value system (call it neoliberalism, corporate driven globalization etc) where commodification and privatization and the pursuit of unlimited economic growth (dependent on the exploitation of precious resources within a finite world) are promoted. Here the climate crisis is understood within the context of a profoundly unjust global economic system built on unequal access to and control over the planet’s limited resources and the benefits that accrue from their use.
In this perspective, a number of questions are raised. Should we be looking to market based mechanisms such as carbon offsets to play important roles in addressing the climate crisis? Will pricing carbon and carbon trading bring about the sort of changes we need to address the climate crisis? Are there alternative forms of collective ownership and management of key resources and services – and respective government regulations – that are more responsive to the public interest then market-based mechanisms?
The commons were frequently discussed at the alternative people’s summit. As described in the Council of Canadians vision statement, there exist common heritage resources that constitute a collective birthright of the whole species to be shared equitably among all. Commons include the ecological commons – land, air, forests, water and fisheries; the cultural commons – the shared knowledge and art that are the collective creations of our species; and the modern social commons – including health care, education, and social security. All of these commons are under threat as corporations seek to privatize and commodify them. The Council of Canadians is commited to reclaiming these commons from private interests.
In raising these questions and this climate justice perspective, I talked about our experiences as part of the Reclaim the Power action on December 16 in Copenhagen. The goal of the action was to hold a people’s assembly where voices and perspectives marginalized from the official negotiations are heard, where false and real solutions to the crisis we face are discussed.
Rather then try to describe the action, I think organizers (including organizations, activists and networks from the global North and South) said it best with this description:
“Our goal is not to shut down the entire summit [in hosting a people’s assembly at the Bella Centre]. But this day will be ours, it will be the day we speak for ourselves and set the agenda: climate justice now! We cannot trust the market with our future, nor put our faith in unsafe, unproven and unsustainable technologies. We know that on a finite planet, it is impossible to have infinite economic growth – ‘green’ or otherwise. Instead of trying to fix a destructive system, we are advancing alternatives that provide real and just solutions to the climate crisis.”
Real solutions highlighted include:
• leaving fossil fuels in the ground;
• reasserting peoples’ and community control over resources;
• relocalising food production;
• massively reducing overconsumption, particularly in the North;
• recognising the ecological and climate debt owed to the peoples of the South and making reparations;
• and respecting indigenous and forest peoples’ rights.
The presentation ended with a discussion of our experiences at the Reclaim the Power action which we documented at: www.canadians.org/climatejustice
In moving forward with our climate justice campaign, the Council of Canadians will continue to work with allies on calling the Canadian government to account for it’s shameful record on climate action including through our tar sands campaign. We will continue to work as an active member of the global climate justice movement including participating at the upcoming People’s Summit on Climate Change in Cochabamba Bolivia this April and mobilizations for the G8 and G20 meetings in Toronto (in Huntsville and Toronto) as well as the next UNFCCC meeting in Mexico (November 2010).
We will deepen our analysis of false and real solutions to the climate crisis identified in our background paper for the Copenhagen negotiations and work with members, chapters and allies on concrete objectives that reflect the principles of climate justice. This includes emission reduction targets and climate financing in line with ecological debt; rejecting false solutions such as carbon offsets and market-driven energy integration agenda in North America; working towards a tar sands free future; programmes and policies that will expand green jobs through conservation and energy efficiency measures as well as public and community owned renewable energy projects, and beyond.