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)

A draft text for a potential final agreement in Copenhagen was leaked today to the Guardian. The “Danish text” has made the developing countries “furious” as the draft agreement would give even more powers to the rich nations, weakening UN’s future role as well as abandon the Kyoto protocol. Some say this shows the true agenda in Copenhagen, others believe the draft is unofficial and may have changed a lot since its first creation.

The Environmental Protection Agency in the USA has declared that carbon dioxide is a public danger. This would make it possible for Barack Obama to impose his proposed emissions cuts without an agreement in the sceptic U.S. Senate. A report released today by the Center for Biological Diversity claims that Obama now has the clear legal authority to make a binding commitment for greenhouse gas reductions in Copenhagen without waiting for Congress.

The UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization have announced, in yet another report, that the first decade of this century is “by far” the warmest on record: “The decade of the 2000s (2000–2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990–1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980–1989).” The National Climatic Data Center (NOAA) in USA also released a similar report today: “The 2000 – 2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.96 degree F above the 20th century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.65 degree F.”

Gordon Brown says the EU must cut its emissions with 30% by 2020 – but only if an ambitious global deal is reached in Copenhagen: “We’ve got to make countries recognise that they have to be as ambitious as they say they want to be. It’s not enough to say ‘I may do this, I might do this, possibly I’ll do this’. I want to create a situation in which the European Union is persuaded to go to 30%.”

Speaking at Klimaforum09 (Climate Forum 09), the alternative climate conference, in Copenhagen Naomi Klein said this is the last chance we have to save the world, but at the same time she expressed her doubt whether an ambitious deal would be made at the Bella Centre: “The Bella Center is the biggest case of disaster capitalism. The deal we really need is not even on the table.” Klein also criticized the Hopenhagen climate campaign: “The globe has Siemens logo on the bottom and the whole event is sponsored by Coke. That is a capitalization of hope but Klimaforum09 is where the real hope lies,” she said. “Klimaforum is not about giving charity to the developing world its about taking responsibility and the industrialized countries cleaning up our own mess,” she concluded.

The White House says the leaked “climategate” email story is “silly” and that the science is clear: “I think scientists are clear on the science. I think many on Capitol Hill are clear on the science. I think that this notion that there is some debate … on the science is kind of silly.” But just look at these scandalous emails!

Australia has had a notorious history of imposing invasion, occupation, holocaust and genocide on Indigenous peoples that continues to this day. However with the support of 90% of the Australian people, successive pro-coal Australian Governments have effectively committed to inaction on its world leading per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution and hence to Climate Genocide of the Developing World.

White Australia has an appalling secret genocide history that falls into 3 phases, specifically:

(1) 1788-1901, as a genocidal British colony involved in the Aboriginal Genocide (in which the Indigenous or Aboriginal population fell from 1 million to 0.1 million) and in genocidal British colonial atrocities (notably in the Sudan, India, South Africa, China, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands);

(2) 1901-2001, as a UK- and then US-linked independent nation involved in continuing Aboriginal Genocide (by occasional massacres, deprivation, social exclusion and forced removal of Indigenous children from their mothers) and with genocidal, civilian targetting, UK and US imperial atrocities in Europe and in nearly every Asian country – Australia participated in WW1 (invading or bombing numerous countries) , invasion of Russia, WW2 (invading or bombing numerous countries), and military actions against Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Iraq ); and

(3) 2001- the present, in continuing the Aboriginal Genocide (9,000 excess Indigenous deaths annually) and as a lackey of US imperialism involved militarily in the ongoing Iraqi Genocide (post-invasion violent and non-violent excess deaths 2.3 million, 5-6 million refugees) and ongoing Afghan Genocide (post-invasion violent and non-violent excess deaths 3-7 million, 3-4 million refugees with a further 2.5 million Pashtun refugees from US robot-bombed NW Pakistan); and diplomatic legislative and financial involvement in the ongoing Palestinian Genocide by racist Zionist-run Apartheid Israel (post-invasion excess deaths 0.3 million, 7 million refugees). [1].

White Australia has participated in all post-1950 US Asian wars that have been associated (so far) with 25 million violent excess deaths (from bombs and bullets) or non-violent excess deaths (from deprivation). However this carnage is dwarfed by the mostly non-violent excess deaths (avoidable deaths) associated with First World hegemony. Excess deaths for a country in a given period is the difference between actual deaths and the deaths expected for a peaceful, decently governed country with the same demographics. Using UN Population Division demographic data it has been estimated that post-1950 excess deaths (avoidable deaths, deaths that did not have to happen) total 1.3 billion (the World), 1.2 billion (the non-European World) and 0.6 billion (the Muslim World) – with the latter representing a Muslim Holocaust 100 times greater than the WW2 Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million killed) or the “forgotten” WW2 Bengali Holocaust, the man-made Bengal Famine in which Churchill deliberately starved 6-7 million Indians to death. [2].

As a minor but nevertheless important player in post-war Anglo-American imperialism, White Australia has a major complicity in the 1.3 billion-victim post-1950 Global Avoidable Mortality Holocaust. However it gets worse – White Australia (aka Apartheid Australia because of its draconian race-based laws against Indigenous Australians and its diplomatic, legislative and financial support for Apartheid Israel’s ongoing Palestinian Genocide) is a world leader in worsening Climate Genocide. White Australia is the leader in First World commitment to steadily increasing ecocidal, terracidal, greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution that will very likely result in Climate Genocide of 10 billion non-Europeans this century due to unaddressed climate change, this including 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims, 2 billion Indians, 0.3 billion Bangladeshis and 0.3 billion Pakistanis. [3].

White Australia is committed to a climate criminal policy of “60% reduction in 2000 GHG pollution by 2050” – in marked contrast to the urging of top climate scientists and analysts for “cut carbon emissions 80% by 2020”. [4-6].

Importantly, Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter and 92% of its electric power comes from burning fossil fuels. The climate criminal policies of the present pro-war, pro-coal Labor Party Government are essentially consonant with the policies of the pro-war, pro-coal Liberal Party-National Party Coalition (the Nationals being the most troglodytic and Luddite of the three). These extreme right wing parties are collectively known as the Lib-Labs and command about 90% electoral support, with a minority of 10% of Australian voters supporting the anti-war, anti-coal, pro-peace, pro-environment Australians Greens.

Already Australia is a world-leading per capita GHG polluter. As of 2008, “annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 2.2 (India), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO2 pollution is included. [5, 7].

Reducing Australia’s 2000 Domestic emissions 60% by 2020 would mean 2050 domestic emissions of 0.6 x 535.3 million tonnes CO2-e (CO2-equiv; GHG pollution including CO2, methane and nitrous oxide (N2O) and expressed in terms of CO2 equivalents) = 321.2 Mt CO2-e (million tonnes CO2-e). However Australia’s projected Exported GHG pollution in 2050 will be 1,318.2 t CO2-e (tonnes CO2-e). According to the UN Population Division Australia’s projected population in 2050 will be 28.0 million. [5].

Accordingly, the Australian Government projection is for a 2050 annual per capita Domestic GHG pollution of 321.2 MtCO2-e/28 million people = 11.5 tonnes CO2-e per person per year – roughly 2 times the current value for China, 5 times that of India, 8 times that of Pakistan and 13 times that of Bangladesh.

However Australia’s projected Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution in 2050 will be (321.2 + 1,318.2) Mt CO2–e/28 million people = 58.6 tonnes CO2-e per person per year, 8.5% greater than its current values and 9 times the present annual per capita GHG pollution for the World, 10 times that of China, 27 times that of India, 39 times that of Pakistan and 65 times that of Bangladesh.

Pro-coal, pro-pollution Australia is essentially committed to business-as–usual (BAU) in the face of the climate emergency and to maintaining its world-leading per capita GHG pollution position. In stark contrast, after the 2009 G8 meeting, the Indian PM Manmohan Singh pledged that India’s per capita CO2 emissions (already one of the World’s lowest) will never exceed the average for Developing Countries. [8-9].

It gets worse. The White Australian Rudd Labor Government has instructed its Treasury officials to model for a “target” concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at between 450 and 550 parts per million CO2-equivalent (i.e. including the GHGs carbon dioxide, CO2, methane, CH4, and nitrous oxide, N2O), this corresponding to about 390-480 ppm CO2 (with atmospheric CO2 concentration currently increasing at 2 ppm per year). [3, 10].

The Rudd Labor Australian Government pledge of 450-550 CO2-e means a minimum atmospheric CO2 concentration of over 400 ppm CO2 within 5 years with this rising to about 500 ppm CO2.

According to Australian Greens Senator Milne:

“450 ppm [CO2-e] gives us a less than even chance of avoiding 2 degrees warming, leading most likely to the complete loss of Arctic summer ice, extinction of polar bears and so many other species in the wild, and potentially setting in train positive feedback loops that could send our climate into an uncontrollable heating cycle.550 ppm [CO2-e] will send us toward 3 degrees warming, destroy the Great Barrier Reef and almost certainly trigger runaway climate change, leading some to say that there is no such thing as stabilisation at 550 ppm. It should not even be being modelled as it is beyond the point where a safe climate for all living creatures, including humanity, can be imagined.” [10].

What do leading scientists say about these White Australia-proposed levels of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere?

According to Australian National University paleoclimate and earth scientist Dr Andrew Glikson:

“The continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for industrial pollution has already added some 305 GtC to the atmosphere together with land clearing and animal-emitted methane. This raised CO2 levels to 387 ppm CO2 to date, leading toward conditions which existed on Earth about 3 million years (Ma) ago (mid-Pliocene), when CO2 levels rose to about 400 ppm, temperatures to about 2–3 degrees C and sea levels by about 25 +/- 12 metres.” [11].

According to top US climate scientist Dr James Hansen and colleagues (2008):

“Stabilization of Arctic sea ice cover requires, to first approximation, restoration of planetary energy balance. Climate models driven by known forcings yield a present planetary energy imbalance of +0.5-1 W/m2. Observed heat increase in the upper 700 m of the ocean confirms the planetary energy imbalance, but observations of the entire ocean are needed for quantification. CO2 amount must be reduced to 325-355 ppm to increase outgoing flux 0.5-1 W/m2, if other forcings are unchanged. A further imbalance reduction, and thus CO2 ~300-325 ppm, may be needed to restore sea ice to its area of 25 years ago.” [12].

Top UK climate scientist Dr James Lovelock FRS has stated the following of the consequences of an atmospheric CO2 concentration of over 500 ppm:

“In Chapter 1 I describe a simple model where the sensitive part of the Earth system is the ocean; as it warms, so the area of the sea that can support the growth of algae grows smaller as it is driven ever closer to the poles, until algal growth ceases. The discontinuity comes because algae in the ocean both pump down carbon dioxide [by photosynthesis] and produce clouds [through cloud-seeding dimethyl sulphide production]. (Algae floating in the ocean actively remove carbon dioxide from the air and use it for growth; we call the process “pumping down” to distinguish it from the passive and reversible removal of carbon dioxide as it dissolves in rain or sea water). The threshold for the failure of the algae is about 500 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide, about the same as it is for Greenland’s unstoppable melting.” [13].

Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (a top world expert on climate change and coral, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia), re 450 ppm CO2, 2007:

“What we find out is that the threat is much closer than we thought in the past, and in fact the magic number may be 450. When I say ’450′; 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide and we lose them … Lose coral reefs. If you look around Australia today, in fact the world, you find that coral reefs only prosper when you’ve got a certain amount of carbonate ions in the water. The level at which the carbonate ion drops below that level is when you’ve got 450 parts per million, and of course we know that we haven’t actually had that concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for possibly 20 million years, so this does make sense. So once we’ve identified this number, I get the feeling that our politicians, even with their best intentions in Bali, are still flailing around trying to identify the target. And I think that everything, and this goes for not only coral reefs but for rainforest, for the breakdown of the Greenland ice sheet and all of these other issues, 450 is going to be what we must at all costs aim for.” [14].

As outlined above, the Australian Labor Government is committed to polices that will mean an increase in Australia’s already world leading annual per capita Domestic and Exported GHG pollution from 54 tonnes CO2-e per person per year to 59 tonnes CO2-e per person per year – about 9 times the present World average annual per capita GHG pollution.

Back in 1901, Australia’s first PM, racist Edmund Barton, declared that “The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of an Englishman and the Chinaman.” [15].

In 1947 the racist Labor Minister for Immigration, Arthur Calwell, notoriously declared that “Two Wongs do not make a White.” [16].

Now, in the 21st century, the Australian Labor Federal Government is committed to 2050 policy targets that effectively state in relation to permissible per capita GHG pollution that 10 Chinese, 27 Indians, 39 Pakistanis or 65 Bangladeshis are not equivalent to one White Australian.

Further, the Australian Labor Federal Government policy goes well beyond the mere climate racism of “65 Bangladeshis do not equal one White Australian” to what must be described as climate genocide, ecocide and terracide. Thus the atmospheric GHG targets of the Australian Labor Federal Government (generally supported by the conservative Opposition and hence by the 90% of Australians who vote for the Lib-Labs) mean the destruction of Australian and World coral reefs, destruction of the Greenland ice sheet, massive destruction of the phytoplankton of the Oceans together with much of the ocean food chain as well as cloud seeding.

Climate racist, climate criminal, White Australia is overwhelmingly committed to destruction of much of Humanity and the biosphere in the interests of short-term private gain of Australian- and foreign-owned corporate interests who generously fund the egregiously corrupt, dishonest and racist Australian Labor Party (aka the Apartheid Labor Party) and no doubt the other Lib-Lab parties too.

Of course, Australia is not the only climate criminal First World country – it is simply the worst by far of the OECD climate criminals. Indeed the G8 meeting at L’Aquila, Italy, in 2009 was a comprehensive failure that committed the First World to a policy of unspoken Climate Genocide. Thus, according to top UK climate scientist Dr James Lovelock FRS, fewer than 1 billion people will survive this century, this corresponding to the avoidable death this century of 10 billion non-Europeans, with this holocaust including 6 billion infants, 3 billion Muslims (a Muslim Holocaust 500 times bigger than the 5-6 million victim WW2 Jewish Holocaust), 2 billion Indians (more than the 1.8 billion victim Indian Holocaust under the racist British, 1757-1947) , 0.3 billion Bangladeshis (100 times more than the 3 million victim Bengali Holocaust under the US-backed Pakistan Army in 1971) and 0.3 billion Pakistanis. [9].

What can decent people (including decent Australians) do to protect themselves, their loved ones, Humanity and the very biosphere of Planet Earth from the climate racist, climate criminal, pro-coal Australian Libs-Labs?

Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity. Decent people must urgently act by (a) informing others about the worsening, Australia-lead Climate Genocide and (b) urging application of Sanctions, Boycotts, Green Tariffs, reparations demands and criminal prosecutions before the International Criminal Court (ICC) to bring to heel all of the climate criminals, most notably climate racist White Australia and its climate criminal Anglo-American associates, who are knowingly threatening the non-European World with Climate Genocide. [17].

“According to one person who has read the drafts, the new policies will include buying up to 50% of the reduction from abroad. If this is true, it means that the UK will not cut its greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050, as the government promised. It means it will cut them by 40%. Offsetting half our emissions (which means paying other countries to cut them on our behalf) makes a mockery of the government’s climate change programme.”

Monbiot writes that “if global justice means anything”, the rich West must of course make deeper cuts than the poorer developing countries. “We have the most to cut and can best afford to forgo opportunities for development”, Monbiot writes on the Guardian.

“Carbon offsetting makes sense if you are seeking a global cut of 5% between now and for ever. It is the cheapest and quickest way of achieving an insignificant reduction. But as soon as you seek substantial cuts, it becomes an unfair, impossible nonsense, the equivalent of pulling yourself off the ground by your whiskers. Yes, let us help poorer nations to reduce deforestation and clean up pollution. But let us not pretend that it lets us off the hook.”

It is, like always, worth a read: The rich can relax. We just need the poor world to cut emissions. By 125%

The rich countries in the “North”, i.e. the West, have a “rapidly decreasing” population which is “expected to decline over the next forty years.” Developing countries such as India, China and most of Africa on the other hand is where we will see future population numbers increasing.

And yes. It seems so easy to blame countries with an overwhelming rising population for being responsible for wrecking our planet, climate and environment. Because surely more people must mean more pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Right?

Not really. The West is responsible for about 80% of the worlds CO2 increase. An average person living in Great Britain will in only 11 days emit as much CO2 as an average person in Bangladesh will during a whole year. And just a single power plant in West Yorkshire in Great Britain will produce more CO2 every year than all the 139 million people combined living in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique.

As Fred Pearce from the Yale Environment 360 blog notes, only a small portion of the world’s people are using most of the planets resources as well as producing the most of the greenhouse gases. And those are living in the West:

“The world’s population quadrupled to six billion people during the 20th century. It is still rising and may reach 9 billion by 2050. Yet for at least the past century, rising per-capita incomes have outstripped the rising head count several times over. And while incomes don’t translate precisely into increased resource use and pollution, the correlation is distressingly strong.

[…]By almost any measure, a small proportion of the world’s people take the majority of the world’s resources and produce the majority of its pollution. Take carbon dioxide emissions — a measure of our impact on climate but also a surrogate for fossil fuel consumption. Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculates that the world’s richest half-billion people — that’s about 7 percent of the global population — are responsible for 50 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the poorest 50 percent are responsible for just 7 percent of emissions.”

According to Pearce overpopulation in the developing countries is not the problem. Instead the increasing overconsumption among the planets 7% richest people and countries is to be blamed. And he is not alone in claiming this. George Monbiot, Europe’s leading green commentator, also agrees with this viewpoint. As Monbiot notes in a recent published article on the Guardian:

“As one the graphs King displayed demonstrated, and as the UN and independent scientists predict, the world’s population is expected to peak at around 9 billion by 2060 and then to decline to around 8.5 billion by 2100.

Of course the bisophere can ill-afford to carry these numbers, and they will load an extra 40 or 50% of pressure onto every environmental constraint. It’s an issue, in other words. But the issue?

Until the recession struck, the global rate of economic growth was 3.8%. The world’s governments hope and pray that we’ll be back on this track as soon as possible. Population, of course, is one of the components of economic growth, but the global population growth rate is currently 1.2%.

It’s responsible, in other words, for one-third of normal economic growth. The rest is supplied by rising consumption. Consumption, on this measure, bears twice as much responsibility for pressure on resources and ecosystems as population growth.”

Let’s take a look at the ecological footprint between developing countries and developed countries in the West. An ecological footprint is the estimate on how much land is required to provide you and me with food and other resources as well as cleaning up our pollution. The global average ecological footprint is 2.7 hectares per person.

Sweden, my own country, has an ecological footprint of 5.1 hectares. The UK is on 5.3. Australia has 7.8 and Canada has an average of 7.1 hectares. The United Arab Emirates and the United States of America are on the top spot with an ecological footprint of 9.5 and 9.4. Developing countries such as China only has an ecological footprint of 2.1 hectares while India is on 0.9. And most countries in Africa are around or below 1.0 hectares.

Pearce gives even more examples of unfair consumption between the rich and poor countries:

“Americans gobble up more than 120 kilograms of meat a year per person, compared to just 6 kilos in India, for instance.”

“Just five countries are likely to produce most of the world’s population growth in the coming decades: India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. The carbon emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of around four Chinese, 20 Indians, 30 Pakistanis, 40 Nigerians, or 250 Ethiopians.”

“A woman in rural Ethiopia can have ten children and her family will still do less damage, and consume fewer resources, than the family of the average soccer mom in Minnesota or Munich. In the unlikely event that her ten children live to adulthood and have ten children of their own, the entire clan of more than a hundred will still be emitting less carbon dioxide than you or I.”

Just like Monbiot and Pearce claims overpopulation is not the problem. Even if we were to get a zero population growth around the world it wouldn’t help us against the climate crisis. Instead the overconsumption among the rich few in the world is the main problem which we must deal with.

Climate Progress writes: “To avoid catastrophic global warming impacts, the rich countries need to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80% to 90% by mid-century. The developing countries (not including China) mostly must slow emissions growth, peak by mid-century, then decline — while ending the vast majority of deforestation by 2020. China must peak its emissions by 2020 and then reduce after that, first slowly, then quickly by mid-century.”

Overpopulation is only seen as a major problem because it’s the only thing we in the West can blame the developing countries for.

During the G8 the world leaders failed to agree on specific targets for climate cuts. They only agreed on “substantially reduce” global emissions by 2050, without any legally binding targets or a roadmap. The United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon criticizes the G8 climate outcome and says it’s “not sufficient”, and that “much more needs to be done” if the world is to be able to agree on a new climate agreement during the climate talks in Copenhagen later this year.

“The time for delays and half-measures is over. The personal leadership of every Head of State or Government is needed to seize this moment to protect people and the planet from one of the most serious challenges ever to confront humanity.”

Ban Ki-moon warned in a statement, issued shortly after the G8 climate meetings, that if the world’s leaders “fail to act this year, they will have squandered a unique historical opportunity that may not come again”. But the Secretary General did welcome the G8 long term goal to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. But said that for it to be credible it requires “ambitious mid-term targets” and “clear baselines”.

“In order to achieve such a global goal, developed countries must lead by example in making firm commitments to reduce their emissions by 2020 on the order of the 25 – 40 per cent below 1990 levels that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tells us is required. It is disappointing to note that thus far, the mid-term emission targets announced by developed countries in the MEF are not in this range.

Every country must do its part, based on the principle of equity. Developing countries also need to contribute by undertaking national efforts to mitigate emissions that are nationally appropriate, measurable, reportable and verifiable.

Developing countries need funding and technology assistance. Funding is also needed to assist vulnerable developing countries adapt to the harmful effects of climate change.

We stand at a historical crossroads. Business as usual is no longer viable.”

Green Blog twittered during the G8 meetings and you can read all the “tweets” here.

Photo credit: MK Media Productions

Tamara Stark, Communications Director at Greenpeace in the UK, writes this spot on blog post about the environmental “China bashing” in the international media.

“Having spent the last three years living in China, I and all of my Chinese colleagues became somewhat accustomed to what we referred to as “China bashing” by some of the international media. You know the sort of thing: the over-the-top, almost hysterical cry of “China’s eating up all the world’s resources!” Since China is now one of the world’s largest manufacturing centres, the claim was applied to almost anything – timber, coal, or even the cobalt used to make our cell phone batteries. To a certain degree, therefore, there is a kernel – but not much more – of truth to the claim.”

Stark highlights the fact that most of the production that generates the waste and pollution in China comes from factories (many owned by Western corporations) producing products intended for and consumed by the Western markets. We in the West have outsourced our dirty factories to (often) un-democratic countries with shameless low wages and with a political and justice system that lacks even mediocre environmental regulations. So why is the mainstream media blaming these developing countries for the increasing amount of greenhouse gas emissions when it is actually our consumption that is the root of the problem?

Stark continues by adding that China is currently investing more in renewable energy than some Western countries:

“For example, take their investment in renewable energy. Every year, there is more wind power capacity installed in China than the UK has installed in its entire history. The UK is currently near the bottom of the EU in terms of investment, only just managing to top Malta and Luxembourg. Surely a G8 country should be doing better than this?”

It unfortunately seems that the UK will lose its only wind turbine factory (and over 600 people will lose their jobs) due to a lack of much-needed investment in the green energy sector in favour of dirty fossil fuels such as coal and nuclear energy instead. While that happens in Europe the leaders of China are investing $12.6 million every hour to green their economy. China is actually investing twice as much as USA to green the economy, create jobs for the future and stop man-made climate-change. And this despite the fact that the US economy is 1.5 times as large as China’s.

When a single power plant in West Yorkshire in Great Britain will produce more CO2 every year than all the 139 million people combined living in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique. And when the West’s environmental footprint is several times higher than those in China who are we to be the ones pointing fingers?

We should never forget that it is we in the developed world that has created this global environmental problem. We are the ones responsible. Trying to claim otherwise is just disgusting.

Photo credit: World Resources Institute Staff

Al Gore talked about the failing auto industry in USA, “clean coal” and the environmental work being done in China in a recent interview with Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria.

In the interview Gore said that he thinks that the whole auto industry needs to be “transformed”, and that the auto makers in USA “should make a transition as quickly as possible toward plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.”

ZAKARIA: Would you bail out the carmakers?
GORE: Whatever assistance might be forthcoming should be focused on speeding the changes that are absolutely essential to ensure that our companies are competitive in the global marketplace. When I was vice president, I initiated a program called the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. The federal government invested over a billion dollars in partnership with the Big Three to focus on the accelerated development of advanced high-efficiency vehicles. But as soon as they felt they were off the hook at the end of 2000, they pulled the plug and walked away.

Gore also mentioned that he is in favour of raising the gasoline tax, saying: “I don’t think that’s likely to happen, but that’s my preferred alternative”. If you are a regular Green Blog reader you probably know by now that I am a big supporter of high gasoline taxes. I think it’s a great and easy way to encourage more people to use carpools, take public transportations or bike to work etc. Of course the taxes generated should help pay for something else in return for a higher gasoline tax. This way people and families don’t end up loosing any money and there won’ be so much criticism about rising fuel costs.

Gore also, somewhat, defended developing nations such as China and India:

“China and India and other developing countries all have exactly the same excuse for not moving on the climate crisis. They say, the United States hasn’t done anything. When the U.S. acts it will be by far the most effective way to improve the odds that China and India and other smaller developing economies will also act. They know that it’s in their own interest to tackle this problem.”

Gore especially defended China saying the country “is now actively preparing a version of cap-and-trade legislation” and that “their top leaders appear to get it”. Other things Gore mentioned in the interview were that China has “the largest tree-planting program in the world. They are actively building solar and wind and exploring carbon capture and sequestration”.

But according to Gore these countries “are not doing enough by a long shot [but] the way to encourage them to do more is … for the United States to take the lead”.

Gore also continued to criticize the “clean coal” lie that the fossil companies are foolishly trying to sell to the public and politicians. Gore said in the interview that “clean coal” uses “technology that does not yet exist”, and that “we cannot allow an illusion to be the basis of a strategy for human survival”.

You can read the whole interview here.

Photo credit: World Economic Forum

During a meeting, with focus on development and transfer of technology that can help tackle climate change, in Beijing with 76 nations attending the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said that “developed countries have a responsibility and an obligation to respond to global climate change by altering their unsustainable way of life”.

“The developed countries have a responsibility and an obligation to respond to global climate change by altering their unsustainable way of life,” Wen was quoted as saying by Xinhua news agency.

Developed countries should also help developing countries respond to climate change, Wen said, according to the agency.

A senior Chinese climate policy official also warned that “a lack of firm funding commitments could derail efforts to cut emissions in developing countries, especially during times of economic turmoil”.

Nidhi Jamwa focuses on a recently started green Sierra Club initiative in India that will try “to explore other ways of creating a robust dialogue on developing a green economy” and to “network, collaborate and share information”:

“There it goes again. It is always India and China that are the two emerging villains of climate change. The developed world has built their infrastructure and created wealth, based on technologies that are high on carbon emissions. Even now, it refuses to deliver on its promise to bring down carbon emissions. Yet goes about patronising the developing world on the need for green economy.

To quote Pope: “The US has to get rid of old stuff and India has to create new stuff. The Sierra Club can help India make that transition…India does not have fossil fuel to run a carbon economy, so it should leapfrog to low- carbon economy and switch to renewable sources such as solar, wind power, etc. And all this is available in plenty in India.”

By the same logic, California should be leading in the switch to green technology as it has plenty of both sun and the sea. If switching to a low-carbon economy was indeed so simple, what was keeping the industrialized world from making the transition?”

We are all in this together. That is for sure. But why should the pressure be on the developing countries to “leapfrog” and create a green and sustainable society when the developed (mainly western) countries are the ones that has the highest per capita carbon emissions?

It’s like blaming climate change on our children and the younger generation when it’s actually the older generation who are to be blamed.

Via Arbetarens Klimatblogg.