However it is possible to quantitate the Climate Debt incurred by profligate high polluters such as the US Alliance countries and the Climate Credit allowing low polluters to advance economically on a path to eventual zero emissions in circa 2050. Quantitative, country by country analysis of the Climate Debt of Climate Debtor countries versus the Climate Credit of Climate Creditor countries may prove to be a valuable litigation weapon in the fight of Island States for their very physical survival. This approach may indeed help avert “climate genocide”.

The contribution of each country to elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) can be calculated as Historical Climate Debt (1751-2006 CO2 pollution) minus Climate Credit (its fair share of the World’s terminal CO2 pollution budget of 600 Gt CO2 between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050). With CO2 pollution valued at $100 per tonne CO2, mostly European countries and Japan have Net Climate Debts ranging up to $9.7 trillion (for the USA) whereas non-European countries typically have Net Climate Credits ranging up to $6.5 trillion for India.

The World is increasingly threatened by man-made global warming due to pollution of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases (GHGs), principally carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), with this GHG pollution deriving mostly from fossil fuel burning and from land use (agriculture and deforestation). According to I.C. Prentice et al “Before the Industrial Era, circa 1750, the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration was 280 +/- 10 ppm for several thousand years. It has risen continuously since then, reaching 367 ppm in 1999” (see “The carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon dioxide”, coordinating lead author I.C. Prentice). The atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 394 ppm in 2010 with a rate of increase of 2.4 ppm per year (see “Recent Mauna Loa CO2”, US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Note that CO2-equivalent (CO2-e) is the greenhouse gas (GHG) amount taking all GHGs other than water (H2O) into account and expressing this in terms of CO2 equivalents, CO2 being largely responsible for the atmospheric GHG effect (excluding H2O) (see “2011 Climate Change Course”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course ).

Historical Climate Debt

The Historical Climate Debt of the World has been estimated at 12 Gt CO2 (12 billion tonnes CO2) in 1751-1900 and 334 Gt CO2-e for 1901-2008, for a total of 346 Gt CO2 in the period 1751-2008 (see “Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere”).

In a 2008 letter to Australia PM Kevin Rudd, NASA’s Dr James Hansen provided a breakdown of global responsibility for fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution between 1751 and 2006 (see “Letter to PM Kevin Rudd by Dr James Hansen”, 2008) that is summarized below as a percentage (%) of the Historical Climate Debt (1751-2006) of 346 Gt CO2.

Ships/air (4%) : 4% of 346 Gt CO2 = 13.84 Gt. This has been allocated proportionately to the other groups.

Rest of World (12.8%) = 44.29 + 1.85 = 46.14 Gt CO2

The above compilation shows the Climate Debt for major polluters in the period 1750-2006. It should be noted that this is a big under-estimate of Historical Carbon Debt because it is based solely on fossil fuel-derived CO2 and ignores that due to other GHGs, cement manufacture and de-forestation. For countries in the “Rest of Europe” category, their Historical Climate Debt was calculated based on their proportion of the 2011 population (see “List of countries by population” (2011)). Thus according to the UN Population Division (see: http://esa.un.org/wpp/unpp/p2k0data.asp ) Europe had a population of 738.2 million in 2010 and accordingly the “Rest of Europe” has a population of 738.2 million – 62.3 million (UK) – 81.7 million (German) – 142.9 million (Russia) = 451.3 million. Thus, for example, Switzerland (part of “Rest of Europe”) has a population of 7.9 million and its Historical Climate Debt is 7.9 million x 64.88 Gt CO2 /451.3 million = 1.14 Gt CO2.

For countries in the “Rest of World” category, their Historical Climate Debt was also calculated based on their proportion of the 2011 population (see “List of countries by population” (2011), Wikipedia). Thus according to the UN Population Division the World had a population of 6,980.3 million and accordingly the “Rest of World” population = 6,980.3 million – 62.3 million (UK) – 81.7 million (Germany) – 142.9 million (Russia) – 1,210.2 million (India) – 1,339.7 million (China) – 127.7 million (Japan) – 312.7 million (USA) – 34.5 million (Canada) – 22.8 million (Australia) – 451.3 (“Rest of Europe” ) = 3,194.5 million. Thus, for example, Turkey (part of “Rest of World” ) has a population of 73.7 million and so its Historical Climate Debt is 73.7 million x 46.14 Gt CO2/3,194.5 million = 1.06 Gt CO2.

It should be noted that this analysis is rather unfair to India, China , the “Rest of World” and indeed much of the “Rest of Europe” because it ignores the reality that most of these countries were variously subject in this period of 1751-2006 to colonial subjugation or crippling hegemony by the major polluters, namely the UK, Germany, the USA, Russia and Japan (see “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History” and William Blum’s “Rogue State”).

Further, one can value this Historical Carbon debt by applying a Carbon Price and here we will use $100 per tonne CO2, roughly the price that could achieve a transition from dirty coal and gas burning to clean, renewable wind energy. Thus the Historical Climate Debt of the US can be expressed either as 99.12 Gt CO2 or as 99.12 Gt CO2 x $100 / t CO2 = $9,912 billion = $9.912 trillion. By way of comparison, the GDP of the US is currently $14.5 trillion. China has an Historical Climate Debt of 29.55 Gt CO2 or $2.955 trillion.

Of course a Carbon Price of $100 per tonne CO2 is only based on what is required to implement wind power competitively in the current World Order. A more valid price would be that based on the value of a human life and the avoidable death associated with carbon burning. Thus at a “value of a statistical life” (VOSL) of $7.6 million per person ($73 billion pa for10,000 pa Australian carbon burning-related deaths) and $9 billion pa in fossil fuel subsidies, the minimum Carbon Price to cover carbon burning-derived deaths and carbon burning subsidies is $554 per tonne of carbon as compared to the recently Australia legislated Carbon Price of $23 per tonne CO2-e (see “Australian carbon burning-related deaths and carbon burning subsidies => minimum Carbon Price of A$554 per tonne carbon”).

Historical Climate Debt can be expressed on a per capita basis simply by dividing the Historical Climate Debt for a country (e.g. see the data tabulated above ) by the present population of the country. For all “Rest of World” countries, the Per Capita Historical Carbon Debt (US$ per person) = 46.14 billion tonnes CO2 X $100 per tonne CO2/ 3,194.5 million persons = $1,444.4 per person. For all “Rest of Europe” countries, the Per Capita Historical Climate Debt (US$ per person) = 64.88 billion tonnes CO2 X $100 per tonne CO2/ 451.3 million persons = US$14,376.2 per person.

Post-2010 Climate Credits

In 2009 the WBGU which advises the German Government on climate change estimated that for a 75% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2C temperature rise (EU policy), the World must emit no more than 600 Gt CO2 between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050. From this information it was possible to use data for annual per capita GHG pollution (i.e. of CO2-e; see “List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita”) to calculate years left to zero emissions for every country in the world (see “Shocking analysis by country of years left to zero emissions”). If we accept that “all men are created equal” then the annual per capita “terminal budget “ share is 600 Gt CO2/ (40 years x 7 billion people) = 2.14 t CO2 per person per year.

Thus relative to mid-2010, Australia (population 22.8 million in 2011) at its current rates of GHG pollution had only 1.1 years left to zero emissions and thus by about August 2011 had used up its” fair share of this terminal global GHG pollution budget and is now stealing the entitlement (Climate Credits) of other countries i.e. it has approximately zero Carbon Credits. A more precise calculation of Australia’s Carbon Credits is 2.14 t CO2 per person per year x 22.8 million persons x 1.1 years = 53.7 Mt CO2 (million tonnes CO2) = 0.054 Gt CO2. Note that these estimates derive from consideration of CO2-e.

While the Climate Credits of the US = 2.14 t CO2 per person per year x 312.7 million persons x 3.1 years = 2,074 Mt CO2 = 2.074 Gt CO2 = $207.4 billion , the Climate Credits of China = 2.14 t CO2 per person per year x 1,339.7 million persons x 18.5 years = 53,039 Mt CO2 = 53.04 Gt CO2 = $5,304 billion. .

These Climate Credits can be expressed either as Gt CO2 or in US dollars by applying a Carbon Price of $100 per tonne CO2 e.g. the Climate Credits of Australia, the US and China are $5.4 billion, $207 billion and $5.3 trillion, respectively.

Per capita Climate Credits each country can simply be obtained by dividing Carbon Credits by the population. Per capita Climate Credits (US$ per person) = years to zero emissions x 2.14 tonnes CO2 per person per year X $100 per tonne CO2.

Net Climate Debt and Net Climate Credit

Net Climate Debt equals Historical Climate Debt minus Climate Credits. Thus the Net Climate Debt of the US is + $9.912 trillion – $0.207 trillion = $9.705 trillion. In contrast China has a Net Climate Debt of $2.955 trillion – $5.304 billion = – $2.349 trillion i.e. China has a Net Climate Credit of + $2.349 trillion.

Listed below is the Per Capita Net Climate Debt (US$ per person) for all the Climate Debtor countries (those with a Net Climate Debt) and the Net Climate Credit for all the Climate Creditor countries (those with a Net Climate Credit). One notes that just as the debtor countries of Europe are expected to meet their financial obligations, so the Climate Debtor countries must also be brought to account for their profligacy. The data is expressed country by country as Per Capita Historical Climate Debt minus Per Capita Climate Credit = Net Per Capita Climate Debt (US$ person). To obtain the total Net Climate Debt or Net Climate Credit for a country simply multiply the per capita value (in US$ per person) by the population (see “List of countries by population”).

Net Per Capita Climate Debt (US$ per person) of Climate Debtor countries

United Kingdom (33,307), United States (31,035), Germany (27,856), Australia (23,900 or 24,265 if including the effect of its huge GHG Exports on its Climate Credits), Russia (17,529), Canada (15,560), Luxembourg (13,649), Estonia (13,520), Ireland (13, 456), Czech Republic (13,263), Netherlands (13,242), Belgium (13,306), Finland (13,199), Denmark (13,135), Norway (13,028), Greece (12,942), Cyprus (12,878), Slovenia (12,857), Austria (12,835), Iceland (12,835), Ukraine (12,793), Poland (12,771), Belarus (12,579), Slovakia (12,707), Spain (12,707), Italy (12,707), France (12,600), Sweden (12,322), Switzerland (12,193), Bulgaria (12.300), Serbia & Montenegro (12,300), Hungary (12,300), Portugal (12,236), Malta (11,851), Croatia (11,765), Macedonia (11,723), Romania (11,573), Lithuania (11,509), Bosnia & Herzegovina (10,931), Latvia (11,780), Japan (10,017), Moldova (8,213), Albania (7,357).

Belize (1,273), Qatar (1,166), Guyana (1,148), Malaysia (1,038), United Arab Emirates (1,016), Kuwait (1,228), Papua New Guinea (909), Brunei (845), Antigua & Barbuda (845), Zambia (824), Bahrain (802), Trinidad & Tobago (738), Panama (653), New Zealand (653), Botswana (567), Saudi Arabia (503), Venezuela (460), Indonesia (417), Equatorial Guinea (374), Turkmenistan (353 ), Singapore (353), Liberia (332), Nicaragua (289), Oman (246), Palau (246), Brazil (246), Uruguay (225), Mongolia (135), Israel (135), Nauru (118), South Korea (53), Kazakhstan (32), Libya (11), Myanmar (11).

Net Per Capita Climate Credit (US$ per person) of Climate Creditor countries

Taiwan (11), Cambodia (75), Peru (118), Paraguay (118), South Africa (182), Argentina (225), Central African Republic (268), Suriname (353), Gabon (396), Ecuador (439), Bolivia (460), Cameroon (589), Iran (589), Côte d’Ivoire (610), Seychelles (631), Guatemala (631), Congo, Democratic Republic (formerly Zaire) (631), Uzbekistan (674), Azerbaijan (824), Angola (867), Bahamas (888), Benin (931), Zimbabwe (931), Laos (974), Mexico (974), Nepal (995), Colombia (995), Namibia (995), Chile (995), Congo, Republic (1,124), Madagascar (1,124), Jamaica (1,166), Barbados (1,209), Mauritania (1,316), Turkey (1,316), Costa Rica (1,423), Lebanon (1,466), North Korea (1,530), Thailand (1,573), Jordan (1,701), China (1,753), Honduras (1,830), Sudan (1,915), Algeria (2,236), Iraq (2,236), Sierra Leone (2,236), Syria (2,408), Tunisia (2,729), Dominican Republic (2,964), St Kitts & Nevis (3,221), Nigeria (3,221), Fiji (3,221), Guinea (3,371), Mauritius (3,371), Cuba (3,542), Togo (3,542), Vanuatu (3,692), Philippines (3,692), Malawi (3,692), Mali (3,884), Chad (3,884), Sri Lanka (4,077).

Uganda (4,269), Dominica (4,269), St Lucia (4,269), Egypt (4,483), Niue (4,483), Ghana (4,483), Grenada (4,719), El Salvador (4,976), Guinea-Bissau (4,976), Tanzania (4,976), Djibouti (4,976), Pakistan (5,254), Samoa (5,254), Tonga (5,254), Morocco (5,575), Senegal (5,575), Georgia (5,575), Armenia (5,896), St Vincent & Grenadines (6,281), Kenya (6,281), Maldives (6,666), Kyrgyzstan (6,666), Burkina Faso (6,666), India (7,837), Cook Islands (7,137), Bhutan (7,629), Yemen (8,207), Tajikistan (8,207), Mozambique (8,207), Rwanda (8,207), Burundi (8,207), Lesotho (8,849), Swaziland (8,849), Eritrea (9,577), Haiti (9,577), Solomon Islands (12,573), Vietnam (12,573), Cape Verde (12,573), Niger (12,573), Ethiopia (12,573), São Tomé and Príncipe (13,985), Afghanistan (15,697), The Gambia (15,697), Bangladesh (15,697), Comoros (20,598), Kiribati (24,278).

Summary

Using readily available data this analysis attempts to estimate Net Per Capita Climate Debt or Net Per Capita Climate Credit for all countries of the World. Note that it is domestic GHG pollution that is being considered and thus the grievous culpability of fossil fuel exporters like Australia and Saudi Arabia is not evident from this data set, although all the major fossil fuel exporters end up in the Climate Debtor list. The assumptions and methodology are clear, this enabling more precise revisions. The total amounts of Net Climate Debt and Net Climate Credit can be readily determined from the above per capita data simply by multiplying by the population. Thus, by way of key examples, the Net Climate Debt is $9.7 trillion (for the USA), $2.3 trillion (Germany), $2.1 trillion (UK), $0.5 trillion (Australia) and $0.5 trillion (Canada) whereas the Net Carbon Credit is $6.5 trillion (India), $2.3 trillion (China), $2.2 trillion (Bangladesh) and $0.9 trillion (Pakistan).

After the disastrous inaction of the Durban Climate Conference and the derisory First World offer of a $100 billion climate fund for poor nations, it is apparent that the greedy climate criminals (notably the US, Australia and Canada) and the other Climate Debtors will not repay their debt nor indeed stop polluting the atmosphere. One hopes that the Climate Creditor countries will insist on full reparations for a polluted planet. Hopefully this analysis will be useful in International Court of Justice (ICJ) litigations and International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutions against Climate Debtor countries by Climate Creditor countries. I would urge everybody, and in particular citizens of threatened megadelta and Island States, to inform their leaders about this Climate Debt and Climate Credit analysis. The First World EU governments in the current EU financial crisis are insisting on financial debt repayment and fiscal responsibility by debtor countries. Climate Creditor countries should likewise insist on repayment of Climate Debt and a rapid global move to cessation of greenhouse gas pollution. The Climate Debtors are stealing from the poor Climate Creditors and should be held to account by the Climate Creditors at the ICJ and the ICC.

From 2001 and until recently, Denmark was run by a liberal-conservative government supported by a far right nationalist party. Although holding a narrow majority of seats in parliament, this constellation pulled through a constant flow of tax breaks and privatizations made possible by feeding the Danish People’s Party lumps of – excuse me – xenophobic policies in turn for their votes. This dictatorship of a majority if there ever was one – more often than not, the remaining near-half of parliament was held from influence – is set to end, it appears, not to be replaced by a corresponding red block of parties.

Firstly, because the Social Democrats have wowed to end it. Traumatized by the Iraq war, in which Denmark participated on the most narrow of parliamentary majorities, they have promised to work for a change of law to require 2/3, not 50%, of the votes for such serious decisions as wars. Secondly, because the traditional power balances of the parties were shattered by voters this time. The victors, the Socialist People’s Party especially, lost eight seats combined and must rely on two supporting parties – the centrist Danish Social Liberal Party and the Marxist Red-Green Alliance – who in turn earned eight seats each. That and the occasionally possible deal with some of the right wing parties. Actual democracy, everyone is hoping.

What is certain to end and even be somewhat reversed is the xenophobic policies. The mechanism of buying capitalist laws with racist or nationalist laws have been exhausted. Recently Germany was angered by Denmark reinstating border controls although abandoned everywhere in the European Union and Danes – leftist, centrist and moderately rightist alike – have witnessed too many disputes with NGOs over international law and humanitarian treaties. But will a fully “red” government replace the old one? No. Although, ironically, they were the most critical of the opposition parties when immigration laws were ever tightened, the differences between the centrists and the Marxists are too many and too big.

But there is something else the entire opposition has in common: green policies! If they live up to the promises their political programs share we can expect some of the following from the next Danish government:

• Actual legislation on CO2 targets and reduction rate – CO2 emissions reduced by at least 40% by 2020
• Half of electricity from wind and biogas produced from all major agricultural manure by 2020
• Fossil energy replaced with renewable energy in electricity and heating sector by 2035
• Gross energy consumption to be reduced by at least 40% and fossil energy for transport phased out by 2050
• Accelerated construction of planned off shore wind farms, new near-shore wind farms and new turbines on land
• Increased energy saving requirements of energy companies and increased funding for energy research and development
• Accelerated energy renovation of public buildings and public housing
• Copenhagen road paywall, investment in improved public transport, accelerated infrastructure for electric cars and a tax on flight tickets

Often visitors to Denmark express respect for our wind mills and green initiatives. Our country is mentioned in documentaries and international news for our sustainable solutions and bicyclists. The truth is, for the past ten years we have been showing off efforts of the Social Democratic 1990s. While the Danish People’s Party and the Liberal Party harbored some of the last climate change deniers (allowing only rare environmental initiatives supported by the Conservatives) Denmark was left behind by other Scandinavian and European countries on being green. Germans now both recycle more and build windmills at least as good as ours. We botched COP15, remember?

But Denmark is now back among the most ambitious of nations. And the first half of 2012 the new Danish government will hold Presidency of the Council of the European Union. So, see you in a second, green Europe.

Source of green policy summary: Information.dk / Og vinderen blev det grønne Danmark. A decent summary of the election in English at The Economist / A left turn for Denmark.

Here are two videos from Streetfilms and the BBC which shows two cities in Scandinavia where bicycles dominate. You have probably already heard about Copenhagen and the city’s great reputation as a bicycle city. But you might not have heard about Lund, a Swedish town where around 60% of the population use bicycles and public transportation.

"The Politics Show East has been to a town in Sweden where 60 per cent of people leave their car at home. In the town of Lund the majority of the population use bicycles and public transport."

The second video, from Streetfilms, shows Copenhagen "through North American eyes":

"While Streetfilms was in Copenhagen for the Velo-City 2010 conference, of course we wanted to showcase its biking greatness. But we were also looking to take a different perspective then all the myriad other videos out there. Since there were an abundance of advocates, planners, and city transportation officials attending from the U.S. and Canada, we thought it’d be awesome to get their reactions to the city’s built environment and compare to bicycling conditions in their own cities.

If you’ve never seen footage of the Copenhagen people riding bikes during rush hour – get ready – it’s quite a site, as nearly 38% of all transportation trips in Copenhagen are done by bike. With plenty of safe, bicycle infrastructure (including hundreds of miles of physically separated cycletracks) its no wonder that you see all kinds of people on bikes everywhere. 55% of all riders are female, and you see kids as young as 3 or 4 riding with packs of adults."

And while I am at it I might as well share some of my own favourite cycling blogs.

The first one out is Carbuster’s editorial blog where they discuss all topics related to the "carfree movement". If you are interested in transportation issues I can highly recommend you to start subscribing to both the blog feed and the actual Carbuster magazine.

The Guardian has a good biking blog where they post about “all things cycling – in the UK and around the world”.

Crap Cycling & Walking in Waltham Forest is a good cycling blog. Just beware, you can get really depressed from reading their posts. Another similar blog is Bristol Traffic. If you are even more interested in biking topics in and around London you should also check out Real Cycling.

If fashion is your thing you might want to check out Cycle Chic from Copenhagen.

Other cycling blogs worth subscribing to are A view from the cycle path, Bike Hugger, EcoVelo and Planka.nu which is a Swedish network of commuter organisations working for free public transport.

Do you know about other great cities where bicycles has a dominated role in the traffic? Do you know about any other interesting cycling blogs? If yes please share them with the rest of us in the comment section below. Thanks!

Sachs introduces with “the four directions” which are his logical answers to scarcity. Then his talk is divided in nine points; some skipped, others expanded. Focussing on growth, the efficiency paradox, green investments, sufficiency and commons here are a selection of quotes and notes.

Introduction: The four directions

“Let us speak about the success of Copenhagen [laughter from the crowd] everybody who is right in his mind, in the world, knows that we are entering a new historic age. Everybody who is clear in his mind knows that, let’s call it universal encompassing environmental scarcity is to be with us for the 21st century.”

“There are four possible reactions. [...] the first logical answer is, well, keep out people who might add to the aspirations; so it is a logical answer to go for exclusion. [...] Second logical answer when scarcity is looming [...] expansion is a logical response [nuclear power, genetic technology, capture and storage of CO2, geoengineering]. Third, [...] get better in the way we use things; so efficiency is another logical answer. [...] Fourth, [...] revise the aspirations.”

Growth

(11-17 minutes)

“Growth [...] it is a very young phenomenon. Of course for many thousand, two thousand years certainly, humanity has lived without steady economic growth. More so, classical economists – Adam Smith, Malthus, [?] – still do not really have the idea about steady accelerating growth. Yes, there was the idea around that you might increase prospect [...] at some point it will kind of level out, it’s not going to be, if you want, a human condition.”

“The idea of permanent economic growth is an offspring of the fossil age.”

Before second world war governments did not see economic growth as their main objective. Growth philosophy a product of the post-war effort to curb unemployment, thus only 40-50 years old.

Efficiency paradox

(22-28 minutes)

Efficiency paradox: Efficiency leads to consumption.

“The direct rebound effect is that once you can do something more efficiently you do more of the same thing. […] The indirect rebound effect is even more important: […] Where does the money go? […] Whereever you look it is very likely that there will be new energy and material demand associated with it.”

For example, I bought a bike about a week ago. I use it to transport myself to and from work so it already did about 100 kilometers. That’s a couple of kilos of CO2 saved right there. However, it is the stated policy of the Danish government to sell unused carbon quotas. The money they use on tax cuts for the rich and for companies. Thus, my green investment and biking effort is funding luxury yachts, stock market speculation and I don’t know what else.

“The precautionary principle [...] requires we begin research, debate, social experiments about how to live well with less or no economic growth.”

Green investments

(33-37 minutes)

“Investments today shape the economy of tomorrow.”

“There is a common ground [...] between green economy and degrowth. We need green investments because we need a different infrastructure. [Even if it comes with short term growth.] In the mid to long term a real green new deal has to incorporate a perspective of degrowth.”

Sufficiency and the commons

(37-51 minutes)

“Cars are built for intermediate performance levels.”

Effort is wasted in designing for top speed etc.

“The more unequal a society is the less happy people are.”

Unhappiness has environmental consequences as well as growth incentives, therefore promoting equitability creates sustainability.

“If we’d had to pay for Wikipedia, we wouldn’t have it.”

Some 18,000 people were on hand, including, scientists, intellectuals, lawyers and official representatives from 94 countries, among them the presidents of Ecuador, Venezuela, Paraguay and Nicaragua. The Cuban vice president and the prime ministers of Antigua and Barbados were present. Social movements from 132 countries were represented. A complete schedule of events is available online.

The conference came about in reaction to last December’s failed UN Copenhagen Climate Conference. Dim prospects for a 17th UN Climate Conference in Mexico next December were confirmed at an interim UN climate conference in Bonn earlier this month.

The Copenhagen Summit missed in meeting its obligation under the 1997 Kyoto Protocols to establish numerical goals for reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by individual nations. A handful of industrialized nations, led by the U.S. government, commandeered the proceedings, finishing them off with a brief statement of generalities.

Sociologist Raul Prada, Bolivia’s vice minister for strategic state planning, indicated that the Cochabamba summit would pay attention to a range of causes of climate change rather than focus on greenhouse gases alone. The agenda, he said, would include “environmental depredation,” understood as wastage of renewable resources, “ecological disequilibrium,” and environmental contamination.
Inaugurating the conference, President Morales stated, “We have only two roads, Mother Earth or death. Either capitalism dies or Mother Earth dies.” Earlier in Copenhagen, he had observed, “We are the ones called upon to head this struggle for the defense of Mother Earth …The debate [is] between the culture of life and the culture of death.”

This was not new for Morales. At an indigenous congress in 2007 he called for “national and international decisions to save Mother Nature from the disasters provoked by capitalism in its decadence.” At the United Nations in April 2008, he announced “10 commandments to save the planet, humanity, and life.”

The United Nations last year made good on his proposal to name April 22 the International Day of Mother Earth. According to Mercosurnoticias.com, “Climate change [for indigenous peoples] is a problem not only of atmosphere, technology, or financing, but one of the western model of life, of the ambition and greed of capitalism.” Some 7,500 indigenous people attended the Cochabamba conference.

The names given to 17 conference working groups suggested the broad range of topics undertaken. They included: structural causes, harmony with nature, the rights of Mother Earth, climate migrants, indigenous peoples, climate debt, climate change adaptation, forests, agriculture and food sovereignty, Kyoto Protocol requirements, development and transfer of technologies, “shared vision” for action, financing, action strategies, and “carbon market dangers.” Morales’ proposals for a climate justice tribunal and a world referendum on climate change filled out the list. Crammed into four days were 164 two-hour presentations carried out on the initiative of environmental, indigenous, energy, peasant and food sovereignty groups at the summit.

The gathering took on the colors of a “people’s summit,” reflected in commentary by one participant that “Confrontation on climate change had to proceed from the bottom up.” Social movements dominated at the WPCCC, just as they have done in the new Bolivia. “It’s not by accident,” explained writer Eduardo Galeano, unable to attend, that this “summit of mother earth” took place in “this nation of nations.”

The Bolivian setting for the summit indicated world recognition of Evo Morales’ expanding leadership role in popular struggle. The United Nations last August named him a “World Hero of Mother Earth,” identifying him as the “leading exponent and paradigm of love for mother earth in this world.”

The WPCC’s message ultimately came down to the idea expressed by Galeano: that “human rights and the rights of nature are two names for the same dignity.” The People’s Summit unfolded on the anniversary of popular victory marking Cochabamba’s “Water War.” Ten years ago, street clashes with security forces ended up dumping water privatization plans set in motion by U.S.-based Bechtel Corp. From then on popular mobilization grew, leading to the election of Morales’ socialist government in 2005.

Author: W. T. Whitney Jr., People’s World

For over 15 years delegates and politicians from around the world have discussed, debated and negotiated the questions of dealing with manmade climate change in various COP (Conference of the Parties) summits. So why haven’t they made any real progress yet?

That is a big question that covers a whole range of topics and issues that I won’t go into. Instead I will try to focus on the actual politics and tactics used at the COP summits. I will try to see if uneven development and inequality plays any part in how the actual negotiations plays out, how the delegates attending perceive climate justice and fairness, and if all this combined somehow sabotages the efforts to secure a climate deal.

At the major United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992 more than 100 world leaders met to address the question of global climate change. At the end of the conference 187 nations signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) treaty. Without any “tough details” the agreement said nations should “protect the climate system…on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” World leaders managed to get a consensus and reach an agreement but they still had disagreements on what kind of responsibilities nations had under the UNFCCC treaty. The “common but differentiated” phrase seems to have resulted in various different interpretations between the “North” and the “South”. The poor developing nations were, compared to the North, very precise in their interpretation of the phrase and called for the rich developed nations to take the lead in the emission reductions. They also wanted the North to help developing nations in their environmental efforts by transferring large amounts of economic and technologic assistance from the North to the South. The North on the other hand interpreted the phrase a bit differently. According to the UNFCC treaty $625 billion was needed every year for a sustainable development to take place in the developing nations. Around 20% of the money would be paid by below-market loans to the South. But the developed nations never fulfilled their promise of economic and technologic assistance to the South. In the end they paid less than 20% of the $625 billion.

In 1995, three years after the Rio Earth Summit, the first COP conference took place in Berlin, Germany. Here the so called “Berlin Mandate” declared that the developed nations in the North should reduce their emissions first while the developing nations would join in later on. Two years later in 1997 at the COP3 conference in Kyoto, Japan, the US president Bill Clinton actually signed the famous Kyoto Protocol, which called for binding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. But the protocol was never ratified by the USA because of the US senate which voted unanimously in favor for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution. Once passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution successfully blocked any climate treaty that was, in their words, “unfair”. Because the Kyoto protocol did not require the developing nations to do any emissions cuts the US senate felt it was “unfair” and refused to ratify it.

And it is now, with the Kyoto protocol, that you can start to clearly see the different positions and opinions the North and the South, rich and poor, developed and developing nations have on what climate justice actually is. Developing nations didn’t want to accept any scheduled emission reduction targets for the future. Any mention by the North that the developing nations should in some way slow down their development and economic growth by limiting their greenhouse gas emissions was met with an “openly hostile negotiating environment” from the South. The Brazilian ambassador Luis Felipe Lampreia stated during the COP3 conference that: “We cannot accept limitations that interfere with our economic development.” And the lead negotiator from China said: “In the developed world only two people ride in a car, and yet you want us to give up riding on a bus”.

The developed nations are responsible for about 80% of the worlds CO2 emissions. One person in Bangladesh will during a whole year emit as much CO2 emissions as one average person living the UK will in only 11 days. A single power plant in Great Britain will produce more CO2 emissions, every year, than all 139 million people living in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique combined. It is also clear that developing nations are much more vulnerable to the effects a changing climate brings such as droughts, rising tides, floods and tropical storms than rich and developed nations are. And nine Chinese and eighteen Indians release as much greenhouse gas emissions into our atmosphere as one average American does. The USA is alone responsible for over 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but only around 4% of the world’s total population lives in the USA. A whopping 136 developing nations are on the other hand together responsible for 24% of global emissions.

But the former US President George H. W. Bush once notoriously stated that “the American lifestyle is not open to negotiation”. His son, George W. Bush later dismissed the Kyoto protocol completely by claiming that the treaty “would cause serious harm to the US economy” and that it is “an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns”.

Even in light of these clearly uneven numbers the North’s perception of climate justice seems to be to disregard any kinds of historical responsibilities or economical differences, the very same issues that the South thinks are the basis of climate justice. And these rather different perceptions on climate justice between the rich and poor nations help fuel an deteriorating negotiating atmosphere.

When it comes to the negotiations during these summits, like the COP15 this past December, the income differences between developing and developed nations plays a big role in creating a hostile negotiating environment for the delegates. It is also one of the more direct examples on how inequality can dampen cooperation on climate change. Attending these yearly COP summits obviously costs money. Nations need to be able to pay for their delegate’s salaries and accommodations. Other costs involves scientists, lawyers, translators, economists and consultants that can help the nations delegation in the actual negotiations, with their draft proposals, legal argumentation as well as being able to offer counterarguments and proposals to the demands of other nations.

“The reason why many poor small countries are hardly represented in negotiations that concern them directly, writes Robert Wade, is that they cannot afford the cost of hotels, offices, and salaries in places like Washington DC and Geneva, which must be paid not in PPP [purchasing power parity] dollars but in hard currency bought with their own currency at market exchange rates (quoted in J.T. & Parks, 2006: 15).”

Unfortunately many of the less developed nations (LDCs) cannot afford all this and most of the time they will have to go without this much needed help. Just a little side note to show how just bad these things can get: At a seminar in the aftermaths of COP15, at the Lund University in Sweden, a CPS student from Bangladesh told us about how he had, at a visit to the Bella center (where the climate talks were being held), walked into the delegation from Bangladesh. And after a short chat with them he ended up helping the delegation with translations at the big UN summit.

The delegates also need to attend all the formal and informal meetings during the climate summit. And these can be many and scheduled to take place at the same time. If you have several delegates you can easily divide up the work and focus on certain issues, read every single document and draft texts. That’s why the more delegates you can send the better. Studies have shown that there is a great difference between the numbers of delegates developed and developing nations are sending to these COP summits. For example: To COP6, in the Netherlands, the USA sent 99 delegates and the European Commission sent 76 delegates. Many developing nations such as African and small island states were lucky if they could even afford to scramble together a delegation consisting of one to three delegates. Recent studies and experiences at COP10 in 2004 confirm and back this up. During COP6 the chairs decided to split up the negotiations into smaller groups, subgroups and even subsubgroups so that they could easier cover all the climate related issues in an easier manner. Sure, this move can in an equal and perfect world make the debates and meetings flow much smoother. But with the current inequality between developed and developing nations it can make things worse. As you can imagine this decision gave a huge advantage and “agenda-setting power” to the developed nations who had been able to send many more delegates to the COP summit than the poorer nations had.

Another problematic side effect of not being able to send enough people to the climate summits is that the developing nations delegates often gets “buried” in documents and papers. This of course leads to the delegation losing its strength and energy. In the last hours of the summit they could then be presented with a document or proposal to a treaty which is already done and beyond alteration and forced to accept or reject it in an unrealistic short period of time. The developed nations use this to get a tactical advantage of the developing nations. They can offer a document at the last hour and pressure everyone to sign it. If the developing countries don’t accept it they are later labeled by the developing nations as the “bad guy” and the ones responsible for wrecking the climate talks (Huffington Post, 2009). At COP6, for example, “commitments were imposed by muscular chairmanship, or gaveled through without reaction from negotiators exhausted to the point of sleep,” Ashton and Wang claim. But this approach does not always succeed as can be seen by the walkout by G77 delegates in 2003 at the Cancun trade negotiations, or from the failure of the COP6 summit where China and the G77 group felt marginalized by the developed nations. Or from the walkout by African nations at the latest COP15 summit in Copenhagen.

The nasty behind-the-back tactics and behaviors used in the past by developing nations were also present at the latest COP. During the first week of the COP15 summit in Copenhagen a potential final agreement, called the “Danish text”, was leaked to the Guardian. The draft text was apparently worked out by developed nations such as the UK, US and Denmark and planned to be adapted by nations during the final week of the summit. The draft agreement made the developing countries “furious” as it would give even more powers to the rich nations, weakening UN’s future role as well as abandon the Kyoto protocol. Many NGOs, commentators and political leaders have criticized these COP summits and the tactics being used as unfair and even undemocratic. At the end of COP15 the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for example called the summit “undemocratic”. Raman Mehta from Action Aid India said this in a statement, in light of the “Danish text”, that:

“The global community trusted the Danish government to host a fair and transparent process but they have betrayed that trust. Most importantly, they are betraying those who are disproportionately impacted by climate change and whose voices are not being heard. This unfair behaviour strikes a blow to all efforts to achieve justice and equity in the climate change negotiations process (quoted from Friends of the Earth, 2009).”

George Monbiot’s verdict on the COP15 summit wasn’t much better. He called it “stupid” and labeled the organizers and attendees of the summit as incompetent:

“This was the chaotic, disastrous denouement of a chaotic and disastrous summit. The event has been attended by historic levels of incompetence. Delegates arriving from the tropics spent 10 hours queueing in sub-zero temperatures without shelter, food or drink, let alone any explanation or announcement, before being turned away. Some people fainted from exposure; it’s surprising that no one died. The process of negotiation was just as obtuse: there was no evidence here of the innovative methods of dispute resolution developed recently by mediators and coaches, just the same old pig-headed wrestling.”

One also need to keep in mind that local environmental problems such as preventing soil erosion, providing clean drinking water, treating sewage and slowing down the spread of deserts are for most developing nations a much more critical and pressing issue than the more global ones. For developed nations the more global environmental issues such as climate change, ozone depletion and habitat loss are higher up on their priority list. This means that the developing nations need to put more effort into pursuing the South that the global issues should be a higher priority for them.

At the same time many delegates and policy makers from the less developed nations fear that the nations in the core of the world system, which I explained earlier, might just use the climate and environmental concerns to cover up their real agenda: keeping the periphery nations underdeveloped. After being literally forced to accept trade-related, intellectual and property-rights laws and agreements that gives an advantage to the North many South policy makers and even academics hold this opinion of mistrust. And this is a reason to why there is such a big “climate of mistrust” at the COP negotiations. The North has almost constantly failed to keep their promises of financial aid, technological transfer, ignored many of the ecological problems in the South and used tactics to marginalize the South at negotiations. So it’s not really that hard to understand that any suggestions from the North that the South should limit their development, for the good of global environmental issues, are met with a dismissive response from the developing nations.

Final Thoughts

So the lack of power and the extreme poverty and underdevelopment among many of the developing nations leaves them vulnerable in negotiations with the North. It’s more expensive for developing nations to purchase environmental technology and knowledge as they have to be paid with real cash and not credits or loans from the North. This makes it hard for them to perform any kinds of meaningful emission reductions or take part in the COP summits on equal terms.

The wealthy developed nations believe that climate justice is when an agreement involves all parties, both developed and developing nations. Because, they argue, the non-Annex I nations will in a near future increase their emissions with so much that they must be included in a climate treaty. The poorer developing nations on the other hand perceive this in another manner. The climate crisis is a result from the rich North’s excessive consumption. And so they argue they also have the right, just like the North, to build and develop their economy using cheap fossil fuels.

The ozone layer crisis during the 1980’s is a good example of how the world can come together to combat global environmental issues. The negotiations back then was just as hard and complex as the climate talks are today. During the negotiations a Chinese delegate said that: “The call for modernization is so irresistible that China will continue to produce these ozone depleting chemicals,” unless, of course they and other developing nations received financial compensation for their efforts. India was equally tough in their negotiations and their environment minister said in a statement that: “We didn’t destroy the layer. You did. I’m saying that you [the West] have the capability and the money to restore what you have destroyed” (Do you recognize the style of the statements back then to the ones in today’s climate debate?). In the end the North agreed to give financial aid to the developing nations so that they could afford to take proper actions and protect the ozone layer.

But the current climate change negotiations are taking place in an even tougher “climate of mistrust” between the rich and poor. This mistrust is based on decades of Western promises not kept in global environmental and economic matters. To get rid of this suspicion and mistrust that is sabotaging efforts to secure a climate deal the North needs to understand their historical responsibility in this matter. As well as taking social and economic issues into account when negotiating about climate targets. The North could do this by offering a new and fairer global environmental and development treaty that clearly shows their commitments in this issue.

“They could do this by providing greater “environmental space” to late developers, supplying meaningful sums of environmental assistance, funding aid for adaption and dealing with local environmental issues as well as global issues like climate change, and by identifying and investing in win-win technologies and sectors that both address local environmental issues and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (quoted in J.T. & Parks, 2006: 217).”

Basically the North needs to stop treating the weaker nations in the South as “second-class citizens” and work on rebuilding the South’s trust. Until they do we won’t get a fair, ambitious and binding climate deal (Or a planet with a habitable biosphere!).

References

• Roberts, J.T. & Parks, B.C. (2006). “A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy”
• Hornborg, A., J.R. McNeill & J. Martinez-Alier, red. (2007).”Rethinking Environmental History: World-System History and Global Environmental Change”
• Age of Stupid, “UK Priemier: Message from the President of the Maldives” (2009)
• The Guardian, “Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure” (2009)
• United Nations Earth Summit+5
• The Huffington Post, Pablo Erick Solón Romero Oroza, “Climate Headed for Crash Landing” (2009)
• Goodman, Amy, “The Climate Divide: Dispute Between Rich and Poor Nations Widens at UN Copenhagen Summit” (2009)
• Monbiot, George, ”Copenhagen negotiators bicker and filibuster while the biosphere burns” (2009)
• Democracy Now, ”Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on How to Tackle Climate Change” (2009)
• The Guardian, ”Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak” (2009)
• Friends of the Earth International, ”danish government slammed for bias and secrecy in role as president of un climate conference” (2009)

“AMY GOODMAN: What level of emissions are you willing to support reductions of emissions?

PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ: [translated] One hundred percent. One hundred percent. We must reduce the emissions 100 percent. In Venezuela, the emissions are currently insignificant compared to the emissions of the developed countries. We are in agreement. We must reduce all the emissions that are destroying the planet. However, that requires a change in lifestyle, a change in the economic model: we must go from capitalism to socialism. That’s the real solution.”

You can read a rush transcript of the interview here. Amy Goodman and Democracy Now had a great coverage of the Copenhagen climate conference which is worth a look if you missed it.

The bottom line in the Copenhagen Climate Summit should be (a) equal per capita greenhouse gas emissions for everyone and (b) an additional but equitable penalty for First World countries for their disproportionately huge historical contribution to atmospheric carbon pollution. Anything less is pure and simple climate racism and climate injustice leading to climate genocide. Unfortunately climate criminal First World countries believe that they are much more deserving than others, and are lead by Copenhagen sabotaging, US surrogate, climate criminal Australia which wants a 2020 per capita GHG pollution for itself that would be over 60 times that of Bangladesh.

Informed by “all men are created equal and have an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, Climate Justice demands that “annual per capita GHG emissions” should at the very least be the same for “all men” – at the very least, because European countries have been responsible for about 73% of 1750-2006 historical carbon pollution of the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century (see Dr James Hansen’s 2008 Open Letter to PM Kevin Rudd of Australia).

Below is a quantitative analysis of “annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution by 2020” inherent in the major Greenhouse Gas reduction proposals put forward at the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference.

Data on the past and projected populations of Developed and Developing countries is available from the UN Population Division.

Data on the past and projected greenhouse gas emissions of Developed and Developing countries is conveniently summarized by the US Environmental Protection Agency (see “Global Greenhouse Gas Data”) and is set out below (Gt CO2-e = billions of tonnes of GHGs measured as CO2-equivalent).

Developed country GHG emissions (Gt CO2-e): 15.0 (1990), 16.5 (1995), 18.0 (2000), 19 (2005), 20.0 (2010), 21.0 (2015), 22.0 (2020).

Developed country population (billions): 1.147 (1990), 1.175 (1995), 1.195 (2000), 1,217 (2005), 1.237 (2010), 1,255 (2015), 1.268 (2020).

Developed country “annual per capita GHG pollution” (tonnes CO2-e per person per year”: 13.1 (1990), 14.0 (1995), 15.1 (2000), 15.6 (2005), 16.2 (2010), 16.7 (2015), 17.4 (2020).

Developing country GHG emissions (Gt CO2-e): 10.0 (1990), 12.0 (1995), 14.5 (2000), 16.0 (2005), 18.5 (2010), 21.0 (2015), 24.0 (2020).

Developing country population (billions): 4.143 (1990), 4.538 (1995), 4.920 (2000), 5.296 (2005), 5.671 (2010), 6.071 (2015), 6.406 (2020).

Developing country “annual per capita GHG pollution” (tonnes CO2-e per person per year”: 2.41 (1990), 2.64 (1995), 2.95 (2000), 3.02 (2005), 3.26 (2010), 3.46 (2015), 3.75 (2020).

For a detailed analysis of the above data see “Climate justice & climate injustice: Australia wants a 2020 per capita GHG pollution 15 times greater than Developing World’s”, put on the Web by the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group.

“Annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO2 pollution is included) (for sources see (see Wikipedia, “List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita” ; Dr Gideon Polya, “Pro-coal Australian Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) devalues Australian lives, threatens Biosphere and ignores Science”, 2009 ; Michael Szabo, “Cut CO2 to India’s level, top scientist urges”, Reuters, 28 May 2008 ; Ross Garnaut, The Garnaut Climate Change Review, Chapter 7: http://www.garnautreview.org.au/chp7.htm ; Hal Turton, “Greenhouse gas emissions in industrialized countries. Where does Australia stand?”, Australia Institute, 2004).

What do the various Copenhagen proposals mean in terms of “annual per capita GHG emissions” in “tonnes CO2-e per person per year” by 2020?

And how do these proposed per capita values compare with a conveniently assumed 2020 Bangladesh value of 1 tonne CO2-e per person per year?

Some of the major propositions at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference are listed below in order of DECREASING acceptability.

1. The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) proposal for “55% of 1990 levels by 2020 for Developed Countries” would mean that their per capita would go from 16 to 6.5 [6.5 times Bangladesh’s] while Developing Countries would “in aggregate aim to achieve significant deviations [downwards] from baselines [BAU?] by 2020 [less than 3.8 i.e. less than 3.8 times Bangladesh’s?] (see New York Times).

2. The UN Draft Proposal for “60-75% of 1990 levels by 2020 for Developed Countries” would mean that their average per capita would go from 16 to 7.1 – 8.9 in 2020 [7.1-8.9 times Bangladesh’s] (see New York Times).

3. India has revised its previous reported commitment that it would not exceed commitment that it will not exceed the average per capita for Developed Countries means that its per capita will increase on current projections from 2.2 to at most 8.9 by 2020 [see item #2; 8.9 times Bangladesh’s] (see: http://carbonoffsetsdaily.com/…/).

4. Notwithstanding China’s rapid uptake of renewable energy and its commitment to reduce carbon emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 40 to 45 percent by 2020, China’s greenhouse gas pollution is predicted to double by 2020 relative to the 2005 value according to various Western experts (see: http://news.yahoo.com/…/). This means China’s per capita will increase from circa 6 to a per capita of 2 x 7,527 Mt CO2-e/1,431 million persons = 10.5 [10.5 times Bangladesh’s] (for GHG data).

5. Obama USA’s proposal for “83% of 1990 value by 2020” would mean that its per capita would go from 27 to 0.83 x 5,177 Mt CO2-e / 346 million persons = 12.4 in 2020 [12.4 times Bangladesh’s] (for 1990 GHG data see).

6. Australia’s highly conditional best offer of “75% of 2000 value by 2020” would mean that Australia’s domestic per capita would go from 30 to 17.2 in 2020 [17.2 times that of Bangladesh] (and its domestic plus exported per capita would go from 54 to 62 tonnes CO2-e per person per year in 2020 [62 times that of Bangladesh]).

Clearly the AOSIS proposal is by far the best on offer at Copenhagen and the US and Australian proposals are so destructive and so far removed from reality as to invite sanctions, boycotts, green tariffs, reparations demands, international criminal court prosecutions and other legal and trade retaliation by an indignant World.

However the AOSIS proposal would only be an initial step because top scientists are in actuality demanding NEGATIVE greenhouse gas emissions. Thus top climate scientists are now advocating a return of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration from the current 390 parts per million to about 300 ppm for a safe ands sustainable planet for all peoples and all species (see 300.org).

A return to circa 300 ppm CO2 will mean drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere i.e. NEGATIVE CO2 emissions are inescapably required.

The Australian and US sabotage of the Copenhagen Climate Conference is likely to be successful. These greedy, racist, profligate countries in a process involving intrinsic climate racism and climate injustice will have essentially declared climate war on the Developing World, worsening the already-commenced climate genocide of non-Europeans..

Both Dr James Lovelock FRS (Gaia hypothesis) and Professor Kevin Anderson ( Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, UK) have recently estimated that fewer than 1 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming – these estimates translating to a climate genocide involving deaths of 10 billion people this century, this including 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims, 2 billion Indians, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis (see: http://gpolya.newsvine.com/…/ and http://bellaciao.org/…/).

What can decent people do to save the Planet from the Australian, EU and US climate criminals? Decent citizens and decent governments must respond by Sanctions, Boycotts, Green Tariffs, Reparations Demands and International Criminal Court prosecutions against the people, politicians, corporations and countries complicit in the worsening climate genocide. Buying goods and services from racist, genocidal, climate criminal Australia and like countries is like buying soap made in Auschwitz.

“I’m sorry,” the text of the ad reads. “We could have stopped catastrophic climate change… We didn’t.”

Some of the so called world “leaders” depicted are Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, Gordon Brown, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Dmitry Medvedev and others.

“We’re hoping these ads predict the wrong future — the one where world leaders look back with a “coulda, shoulda, woulda” attitude at a Copenhagen climate summit which failed. There’s still time to change the future. Our recipe for world leader regret-avoidance is simple: agree a fair, ambitious, and legally binding deal to save the climate”, writes Brian from the Greenpeace Climate Rescue Webblog.