Photo credit: azrainman

New research from the UK Met Office, one of the world’s leading providers of environmental and weather-related services, shows that the world’s efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions would only offer a 50-50 chance of keeping temperature rises below the two degree threshold.

Dr Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office states: “Even with drastic cuts in emissions in the next 10 years, our results project that there will only be around a 50% chance of keeping global temperatures rises below 2 °C.

“This idealised emissions scenario is based on emissions peaking in 2015 and quickly changing from an increase of 2–3% per year to a decrease of 3% per year. For every 10 years we delay action another 0.5 °C will be added to the most likely temperature rise.”

The new research shows that early action against man-made climate change is a must to be able to avoid the doomsday scenarios that comes with a two degree increase in global temperatures.

“These new figures suggest quite unambiguously that the world is on course for calamity unless rapid action can be taken which is far more drastic than any politicians are so far contemplating – never mind the general public.

If action is sluggish or non-existent, the model suggests that climate change is likely to cause almost unthinkable damage to the world; under a “business-as-usual” scenario, with no action taken at all and emissions increasing by more than 100 per cent by 2050, the end-of-the-century rise in global average temperatures is likely to be 5.5C, with a worst-case outcome of 7.1C – which would make much of life on earth impossible.”

The new findings from the UK Met Office were presented at the Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions Congress in Copenhagen last week. And they will put even more pressure on the countries around the world now starting to gather and negotiate in Copenhagen for the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference this December – the last chance we have to take action against “the greatest threat the world has ever faced”.

Al Gore says the world will agree on a new and better climate deal this time. He argues that a “political tipping point” regarding climate change has been reached:

“There is a very impressive consensus now emerging around the world that the solutions to the economic crisis are also the solutions to the climate crisis,” he says. “I actually think we will get an agreement at Copenhagen.”

I am on the other hand not that optimistic. Sure, we might reach an agreement in Copenhagen. But will it be a strong agreement that actually take the new scientific findings into account? Or will it surrender to short-sighted economic gains from corporate interests?

I do see light in the tunnel. With the election of Barack Obama we got rid of the ignorant and idiotic stopping block, that is to say George Bush and the Republican Party. But even Obama is showing signs of weakness. Todd Stern, the Obama administration’s new top climate-change negotiator, says that a 25% greenhouse gas reduction by 2020 is “not possible”:

“It’s not possible to get that kind of number. It’s not going to happen,”

And so far all the climate conferences and talks have ended in a total failure. The climate targets that have been set and agreed on are too conservative and don’t take the science into account. And pretty much all the reductions that countries so far have managed to do have been by outsourcing the pollution to poorer developing countries. For example the UN Climate Change Conference in Poznań, Poland, ended in embarrassment for the European Union when it’s leaders failed to agree on a strong climate deal. George Monbiot, Europe’s leading green commentator, even called the new EU deal for “carbon colonialism”.

What we need is a new stronger climate deal that is based on science and not corporate interests. We need a climate deal with a goal of 350 ppm as a level to balance and stabilize the CO2 in our atmosphere. And we need a climate deal that includes sanctions against countries that do not follow the climate roadmap. Is that really too much to ask for?

“Earlier this year, Bono and I spoke about the intersection between the extreme poverty in the developing world – especially in Africa – and the climate crisis. It is impossible to solve one of these issues without dealing with the other (Gore, 2008)”.

So if we are to solve the equality in the world, our uneven development and environmental problems we just can’t work on one of them. They are all connected and thus we have to deal with all of them at once.

The future is in the past

Could we really call today’s capitalist system based on a never-ending and unsustainable consumption as development? Why does one count the consumption of our nature as an income, as something free to use whenever and how we feel for it? The current global development is uneven, lacks equality and comes with a heavy environmental price. And as we today face a climate and ecological crisis beyond our wildest dreams we can see that the crisis and our problems have roots not just in our modern industrial and fossil burning society, but also in ancient Rome and in our colonial history.

You know how the old saying goes: “it was better before”. But was it? Just as John Bellamy Foster writes in The Vulnerable Planet “many of our fundamental ecological problems date back to preindustrial times.” The early civilizations were largely made up of agriculture economies and so they were vulnerable to ecological collapse from the degradation of soil. The Sumerian, Indus valley, Greek, Phoenician, Mayan and Roman societies all failed, as historical and archaeological evidence shows, in part to ecological factors (Foster, 1999: 36-37).

The Romans made huge impacts on their surrounding environment, which can still be seen today. Examples are deforestation, depletion of natural resources, loss of wildlife and pollution from cities and industries. Abandoned olive presses from the Roman Empire can be found in North Africa – where once trees and olives flourished there is now just deserts. The Roman smelting industries polluted the surrounding environments and poisoned its workers with lead, mercury and arsenic. Studies of the Greenland ice cap even show dramatic increases of lead in the atmosphere during the Roman era. Donald Hughes notes in Rethinking Environmental History, that the awful health and environmental conditions must have “favoured” the plague and helped it spread across the Mediterranean (Hughes, 2007: 27, 33, 35-37).

The collapse of the old civilizations can be seen as examples of what is happening today. You can think of the current world as a bigger and more advanced version of the Roman or Mayan empires. The environmental problems we face today is a mixture of old and new problems such as toxic and radioactive waste into waterways, deforestation in light of increased palm oil farming, dead seabed’s due to increased discharge of nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorous, species extinction on a much larger scale etc. Instead of just destroying local areas of the planet we are now in the business of global destruction. The early civilizations lacked proper understanding of economic and environmental policies, but we have that knowledge. And as our future is decided on our actions in the past we must not follow in the same direction as older and failed civilizations have. I wouldn’t blame technology for our ecological problems. And I don’t believe that if we reject our modern world we can reach ecological harmony. The root to our problem lies in our social systems, and so we need to basically reformulate and reorganize our society in order for a more sustainable and ecological friendly world to emerge (Foster, 1999: 35-36).

The rise of the North

Economies and development are in the end “constrained by ecological conditions”. As deforestation, “agriculture intensification” and other environmental problems contributed to the fall of the Roman and Greek civilizations even the people in ancient Rome made this connection (Hughes, 2007: 4, 12). But something that earlier was confined to more local areas of the world have due to globalization become global problems. As Clive Ponting shows, the uneven development and global problems we face today comes from our colonial history and the rise of Europe, which “drastically affected a whole range of ecosystems” and “reshaped the relationships between different regions” (Ponting, 1991: 194). The rise and expansion of Europe created, what we today call the Third World or Global South, and literally forced the world into a single system and world economy dominated by the “North”.

European powers such as Portugal, Spain and Great Britain created colonies and plantations around the world so that they could grow crops for their “luxury market” and for industrial needs during the 15th and the 18th century. These were crops, such as sugar cane and tobacco, which for some reason could not be grown in Europe. This was either because the climate was not suitable or they missed cheap labour, mainly in form of slaves, convicts or indentured servants (Ponting, 1991: 194-195, 198 also Foster 1999). The territories under colonial ruling, in the Canary Islands, Cuba, Peru, Australia, Brazil, Hawaii etc, were exploited and used just to benefit the home economy. The crops were only a selected few and were mainly grown on huge plantations owned and managed by Europeans which took up the best lands and displaced local farmers to smaller and less fertile grounds. The Europeans in control was only a tiny fraction of the total population and wanted others to do the manual work as they regarded the job done on the plantations as “degrading”. These “others” were usually slaves from places like Africa (Ponting, 1991: 196).

When slavery later was abolished in the 19th century the colonial powers used cheap indentured labour from countries such as India and China (Ponting, 1991: 196, 199). Different laws and taxes were also introduced by the Europeans, such as the agrarian land law introduced in Indonesia by the Dutch in 1870, which gave them complete control of all unused land (Ponting, 1991: 201), and the British hut and poll taxes in East Africa (Ponting, 1991: 203). These different taxes and laws resulted in that the local farmers had to work and grow the colonials “cash crops” to earn money. Or it created a similar “peculiar mixed system that was neither a true plantation nor a smallholding” where the farmers growing the crop “were neither slaves, as on islands such as Jamaica, nor landless labours as in Puerto Rico” but still forced to grow an particular crop for the Europeans (Ponting, 1991: 201). Also, import duties were introduced to pay for the costs for goods to Africans, but goods intended for the European farmers in Africa where exempted. By 1930 the African economy had been transformed and integrated into the international economy controlled by the white Europeans and increasingly the Americans (Ponting, 1991: 204).

The legacy of imperialism

Even after the countries previously under colonial rule achieved political independence and sovereignty not much changed. They were, and still are, under the influence of the Western world, their former colonial rulers. The plantations are still there and a majority of them still produced one single crop or resource. But now they were managed by large multinational corporations and companies such as the Firestone Rubber Company, who owned a 127,000 acres large plantation in Liberia, and the United Fruit Company (Ponting, 1991: 206, 212). It did not matter if the companies were disposed of the land and plantations they previously had owned or by being nationalised. The multinational corporations still dominated the processing and manufacturing of the raw commodities. And due to the overwhelming financial and economic powers the western countries had gained the trade was still in their favour. For example, the companies leave out many of the countries from the more profitable parts by not building any smelters or processing plants. Instead they export the raw commodities to their own home market where the final product can be worth many times more when it’s been refined. Another example is that the “North” around mid-1950 put a tax on already processed timber which meant that the Third World countries must export wood that hasn’t been processed and then import back value-added boards and papers (Ponting, 1991: 214, 216, 218).

In the beginning of the twentieth century Europe and the US had managed to transform former self-sufficient countries in the Third World to countries where the development took the form of providing raw resources and growing a selected few crops, or in some cases just a single crop, for other countries. In one word: monoculture. This in turn brought with it environmental damages to the soil, deforestation and a loss of biodiversity as the crop growing was produced over huge areas. Every year the production of export crops from the Third World grew by three-and-a-half percent while the actual food production for the home market grew much slower than the actual rise in population. This meant that the countries had to import a majority of the food needed. Cuba, Fiji and Tahiti are good examples of this. By 1950 the growing of sugar crops took up 60% of all farmland and consisted of up to 75% of the countries export in Cuba. Because of this Cuba had to import over half of its food. In Fiji during the early 1980’s the sugar was over 80% of all exports while it only employed 20% of the population. And in Tahiti during the 1950’s 75% of the farmland was used to grow crops that were only meant for export (Ponting, 1991: 212-214). James O’Connor argues that the “uncontrolled expansion of monoculture” in Third World countries is the result of uneven development. Brazil and sugar production in the 16th and 17th century, as an example, pushed the country into “deep poverty”, which it has never really recovered from. An example of the devastating effects on the environment uneven development “under the aegis of colonialism and of mindless economic expansion”, as O’Connor puts it, has brought forth was the vast deforestation around the world during the 19th and 20th century (O’Connor, 1989: 4-5).

It is worth noting that Japan was never colonized by the “North” and thus the country was able to be ranked among the other advanced capitalistic states by 1890 (Foster, 1999: 89, 91).

So the former colonial powers have created a world and economic system where the countries in the Third World are bound and intertwined to supply the “North” with crops and other raw commodities (Tabb, 2007: 33). Twenty percent of the total food grown in the world goes from the Third World to the developed and industrialised countries while only 12% goes in the opposite direction. The “South” still exports more food than it imports, even during major periods of hunger and starvation. For example in the famine of 1876-1877 in India wheat was still being exported to the Great Britain (Ponting, 1991: 214). Ponting says that the “North” became developed and received their high material and living standard on the expense of the poor people in the Third World via economic and environmental exploitation with poverty and human suffering as a result (Ponting, 1991: 222-223). O’Connor says that the worst environmental and human disasters “as a rule occur in the Third World” and that the victims “are typically the rural poor”, but also the “oppressed minorities and poor in the First World”, i.e. the West (O’Connor, 1989: 2).And when it comes to climate change it is, unfortunately, the ones that are the least responsible for the climate crisis, primarily the poor people in the Third World, who are the most vulnerable and will be affected the worst from the devastating effects a changing climate will bring (McMichael, 2008: 15).

After the former colonial rulers had left during the end of the 18th and early 19th century and the countries gained independence they did not just face economical or environmental problems but also more deadly ones such as genocides and wars over resources. The norm for many new countries and their leaders after they had gained independence was complete control of the army and the power to intimidate and bully its own people. An example of this is Rwanda. There the Belgians had ruled the country by giving the native minority of Tutsi chief’s superior status and control over the Hutus, a large native group in the country. After the Belgians left the country in 1962 Tutsi dictators were left to rule, which in turn led to the killing of hundreds of thousands of people in the Rwandan genocide in 1994 (Tabb, 2007: 33).

William K. Tabb argues that these dictators and other ruthless leaders are fuelled by easily extracted resources and that this resource extraction still in today’s world continues to “spur extremes of violence and war”. A study by Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner in 1997 shows that the higher a country depends on the export of their natural resources slows down the countries growth and that it “significantly and substantially increases the risk of conflict” and civil wars (quoted in Tabb, 2007: 33).

The struggle over oil

And here is where the oil comes in. In today’s world traditional wars where you normally fight for a specific land area are very rare. Instead civil wars over resources have become the standard. Countries rich on oil such as Nigeria, Gabon, Sudan, Congo and Chad have a long history of military dictatorship and coups which have resulted in starvation, diseases and the death of millions of people and the destruction of the local environment. In Angola, for example, millions of people have died in the civil war that was started because of the “wholesale looting” of the countries oil reserve and natural recourses (Tabb, 2007: 34-35). The huge sums of money generated from the valuable resources was sent to banks overseas and almost never found its way to the people of Angola. Today imperialism has taken the form of global organisations such as the World Bank, IMF and the WTO. And as Tabb points out that in these troubled areas where you can find precious resources you will find foreign corporations and the World Bank ready to work with the local leaders for their share of the cut. Global Witness reports that even though Congo Brazzaville is the fourth largest oil producer in Africa it has a debt of over $6.4 billion. This huge debt is a consequence of the “influence peddling and bribery” of the former French state company Elf Aquitaine (cited in Tabb, 2007: 34-35, 40). In the past countries and their governments would be directly involved in these troubled areas. But today they have to some extent been replaced by global organisations and corporations. When it comes to the Iraq war and occupation many corporations and organisations besides the US army is involved. One example is Blackwater Worldwide, a private military company which has played a substantial role as a contractor for the US government in Iraq.

As peak oil (also called Hubbert’s peak) comes closer and world oil demands and prices soar – the demand grew by 1.5% in 2002, 1.9% in 2003 and 3.7% in 2004 (Tabb, 2007: 39) – the former “Anglo-American petroleum dominance” in the world is loosing ground to state-controlled producers such as Kuwait Petroleum, Abu Dhabi National Oil, Saudi Aramco and Sonatrach, but also from Western oil producers such as StatoilHydro. These state-controlled companies holds “at least half of the world’s proven” reserves and a quarter of current oil production. Instead of investing into alternative and renewable energy sources to combat the high energy costs and becoming energy independent USA and Great Britain have panicked and is using “force to reassert dominance” via “state terror and coercion” in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately these occupations and resource wars have failed and instead of creating stable governments it has resulted in more terrorism, the alienation of the rest of the world and an increasing cost of oil (Tabb, 2007: 38-40).

But it is not just in the Middle East there is an energy struggle going on. Latin America currently supplies more oil to the US than the Middle East does (Davis, 2004: 2). And Third World countries such as Venezuela and Bolivia, both oil rich nations, have in recent years tried to stand up against the North’s energy and political influence. Venezuela and its democratically elected leader Hugo Chavez has increased the nations stake in major energy projects from 40% to 60% in the countries oil company Petroleos de Venezuela. Norway’s share in StatoilHydro is for example about 62% (Wikipedia.org). And instead of going the same path as Congo Brazzaville, Hugo Chavez has used the money generated from his country’s oil to raise his people’s living standard. The President of Bolivia, Evo Morales have nationalised the countries energy industry, similar to what is happening in Venezuela. For this Evo Morales have gained support back home with an approval rating of 80%. This can be compared to George Bush’s own 33% approval rating back home in USA. For this, both Morales and Chavez have been criticized by the “North” for their “weak commitment to democracy” (Tabb, 2007: 39-40).

In Columbia leftwing ELN guerrillas are threatening the oilfields and pipelines operated by the US-based company Occidental Petroleum. That is why Special Forces, the CIA and private security contractors from the US is currently involved in an “an ongoing reign of terror” called “Operation Red Moon” in the Arauca province. T. Christian Miller, reporting in the Los Angeles Times, says that the consequence has been that “mass arrests of politicians and union leaders have become common. Refugees fleeing combat have streamed into local cities. And killings have soared as right-wing paramilitaries have targeted leftwing critics” (quoted in Davis, 2004: 2).

And in the Straits of Malacca, a narrow passage of East Asia’s oil supply, the Malaysian foreign minister have complained that USA is “exaggerating the threat of terrorist piracy” to justify deploying military forces there (Davis, 2004: 2).

Climate change

Because our development and “global market infrastructure” is based almost solely on the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil and coal, the earth is warming up and our climate is changing. And as we stand in front of the biggest environmental crisis ever, namely man-made climate change, our efforts on slowing down the devastating effects can scuttle because of our worlds uneven development.

James Lovelock, known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, has said that he believes that climate change is now irreversible. He predicts that the major part of the humans, more than six billion people, will get wiped out of the face of the earth due to wars, starvation, epidemics and chaos during the rest of the century due to the effects of a changing climate. Lovelock estimates that by year 2100 there will only be around 500 millions people left who struggles to survive on the few remaining liveable places on earth: Scandinavia, Canada and Iceland (Goodell, 2007). Lovelock writes that:

“Gaia, the living Earth, is old and not as strong as she was two billion years ago. She struggles to keep the Earth cool enough for her myriad forms of life against the ineluctable increase of the sun’s heat. But to add to her difficulties, one of those forms of life, humans, disputatious tribal animals with dreams of conquest even of other planets, has tried to rule the Earth for their own benefit alone. With breathtaking insolence they have taken the stores of carbon that Gaia buried to keep oxygen at its proper level and burnt them. In so doing they have usurped Gaia’s authority and thwarted her obligation to keep the planet fit for life; they thought only of their own comfort and convenience. (quoted in Lovelock, 2006: 146)”

Gore says that our “overdependence” on fossil fuels and our weak policies on climate change show what can happen “when reason is replaced by the influence of wealth and power” (Gore, 2007: 191). Since the “market” has become one with development, McMichael argues, we have responded to this climate crisis by framing “solutions to climate change in market terms”. This, McMichael warns, results in “commodification of the ecological commons through green market solutions such as carbon trading, emission offsets, and biofuels, to sustain, rather than question, current trajectories of accumulation and consumption”. McMichael says that because the world is already now warming up much faster than what the IPCC’s “conservative” numbers estimated and that the world’s resources are finite and “deeply unequal”, the idea of the green growth is an “oxymoron”. McMichael argues that the fog of “promises of market prosperity” has covered the effects and impacts of development on our climate, “let alone be recognized for the catastrophe that it already is”, warning that it “will remain so long as market solutions prevail”. The world is slowly realising this. The 2007/2008 Human Development Report says that “climate change is the defining human development issue of our generation”. And the eight Conference of Parties (COP8) of the UNFCCC in Dehli declared that “climate change is a serious risk to poverty reduction and threatens to undo decades of development efforts” (McMichael, 2008: 1-2).

When it comes to responsibility for the current climate crisis the world is just as uneven and unequal. The “North”, i.e. 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 (McMichael, 2008: 2). But still, in light of these unequal differences USA demands that they won’t lower their emissions before the Third World countries does. And this is exactly why the current climate talks aren’t getting anywhere.

The old colonial past and today’s imperialism in the shape of the World Bank, IMF and the WTO (Tabb, 2007: 40) has created a rift between the “North” and the “South” and their relationships today. Or as George Monbiot puts it: “Rich countries once used gunboats to seize food. Now they use trade deals” (The Guardian, Tuesday August 26 2008). This rift takes the form in expression of criticisms such as the comment from the Argentinean President Kirchner who said that “the North should meet its ‘environmental debts’ just as it demands the “South” meet its ‘financial debts’”. Or Brazil’s President Lula who said in February 2007 that “the wealthy countries are very smart, approving protocols, holding big speeches on the need to avoid deforestation, but they already deforested everything” (Philip McMichael, 2008: 3-4). You can say that the “de-localization” of crop growing to countries in the Third World with low wages and a weak environmental system was done to conserve the environment in Europe (McMichael, 2005: 284).

An example of how the “North” has been able to get away easily from their climate and ecological responsibilities is Kyoto’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a part of something that Philip McMichael calls “market environmentalism”. CDM encourages Western countries to meet their very own reduction targets, not by reducing their CO2 emitting sources back home, but by investing in cheap solutions in the “South” (McMichael, 2008: 6, 16). The European Union agreed on a new climate deal during the end days of the 2008 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznań, which was held during December 1-12. The EU promised that they will cut their emissions with 20% by 2020. But the actual emission cuts could end up being as little as 4% by 2020 (Black, BBC News, 2008). That is because of special exemptions for dirty industries in Europe as well as allowing cheap emission cuts overseas to be counted to the EU total (WWF, 2008). These emission cuts done overseas will make it easier for us in the “North” to reduce ‘our’ emissions but harder for the developing countries in the “South” to reduce theirs. Monbiot calls this “carbon colonialism, in which Europe picks the low-hanging fruit in developing countries, leaving them with much tougher choices later on” (The Guardian, Friday 12 December 2008).

Roberts and Parks argue (quoted in McMichael, 2008: 3) that

“when powerful states disregard weaker states’ position in the international division of labor in areas where they possess structural power, they run a high risk of weaker states ‘reciprocating’ in policy areas where they possess more bargaining leverage. The issue of global climate change – which itself is characterized by tremendous inequality in vulnerability, responsibility, and mitigation – can therefore not be viewed, analyzed, or responded to in isolation from the larger crisis of global inequality.”

Robert and Parks also list three points from where this “rift” and “mistrust” comes from: 1) Wasteful Western consumption, 2) A state’s ability for environmental reforms is a function of the state’s position in the international scene of labour, and 3) The West’s approach to more sustainable and environmental issues will hinder the “South” from their economic development. John Rapley argues that we in the West must “probably have to bear the expense of environmental adjustment”, because if we don’t the countries in the Third World will continue to take advantage of cheap and CO2 polluting technologies. If we don’t manage to get away from this rift between “North” and “South”, developed and underdeveloped, we will never be able to agree on any lasting climate policies that will be powerful enough to combat climate change and its devastating effects (McMichael, 2008: 3-5).

What development and for whom?

In the beginning I asked if we really could call our current capitalistic system for development. But, what should be developed and for whom? McMichael lists two different forms of development: food security through the global market, and its alternative: food sovereignty.

The privatization of food security through the global market was constructed in 1986-1994 during the Uruguay Round, a forerunner to the WTO’s agreement on Agriculture in 1995. This agreement means that nations no longer have the right to independent and sustainable food within its borders. Instead of letting the producers and consumers manage and decide over the food system it puts corporations and the demands of the global market in control of it. McMichael calls this the corporate food regime, and says that the only benefactors of this “political construct” are about 15% the world’s population.

Food sovereignty is an alternative way to reach food security. The concept of this idea was put forward by Via Campesina, an international movement of mainly farmers, during the World Food Summit in 1996. Simply put: food sovereignty lets people and nations decide and define their own food and agriculture production. Food sovereignty does not rule out trade, instead it creates a more sustainable and self reliant trade between nations (McMichael, 2004: 277-278 and McMichael, 2005: 269-270, 281, 290-291).

Capitalism destroys and divides

As we know, capitalism is all about profit. The higher the profit is, the higher the growth rate will in theory be, which in turn leads to a higher rate of depletion of various recourses which ultimately leads to a higher rate of pollution (O’Connor, 1989: 11). At the end of capitalism there is environmental destruction.

An example on what kind of effects capitalism can have is the current financial crisis in the auto industry. The auto giants, such as GM, Ford and Chrysler, have for years in their race for short-sighted economic gains resisted and done everything in their powers to stop stronger compulsory MPG and CO2 emission standards. They have even denied climate change and their promises that they could cut their greenhouse gases voluntarily have all failed. As a result the average car sold in the US today is less efficient than the Model T Ford from 1908 (The Guardian, Tuesday 7 October 2008). Why? Because as Henry Ford II once explained: “minicars make miniprofits”. And like John Z. DeLorean, former GM executive, have said:

“When we should have been planning switches to smaller, more fuel-efficient, lighter cars in the late 1960s in response to a growing demand in the marketplace, GM management refused because ‘we make more money on big cars’ “(quoted in Foster, 1999: 124).

And with help from the US government, Standard Oil and Firestone Tire these auto companies deliberately dismantled earlier mass transportation system in the US during the 1930s to the 1950s. During most of the twentieth century the US government decreased funding for public transportation while they wastefully poured money into highways in an effort to increase the corporate profits that comes with private motoring. While this was happening the auto companies bought up electric streetcar lines and converted them to busses. This is today known as “the Great American streetcar scandal”, “General Motors streetcar conspiracy” or “the National City Lines conspiracy” (Wikipedia.org). Between 1936 and 1955 the number of electric streetcar lines had dropped from around 40000 to 5000 in the US as a result. GM also used it’s nearly monopolistic control over the bus and locomotive market to make sure that public transportation kept loosing ground to private motoring. And so with devastating effects for the environment, but also in a technology sense, USA today have to rely on private motoring for 90% of all ground transportation of goods and people, which is more than any other country in the world. One can’t defend these actions by claiming they did not know about the effects. Bradford Snell, a U.S. government attorney, once stated in a famous report to a US Senate committee that: “motor vehicle travel is possibly the most inefficient method of transportation devised by modern man” (Foster, 1999: 114-116, 124).

John Bellamy Foster argues that capitalism has had “overwhelmingly negative results” for our planet (Foster, 1999: 32). For example, the commercial trade, i.e. capitalism, in fur has led to the destruction of entire ecosystem and an enormous and never before seen slaughter of wildlife. Some of the animals worst affected by the fur-trade during the 16th and 17th century was beavers, martens, seals, bears, raccoons etc. Between 1797 and 1803 on the island of Mas Afuera in the Juan Fernandez Islands, off the coast off Chile, over 3 million seals were killed for their fur. In the early 19th century six million southern fur seals were clubbed to death resulting in the nearly extinction of fur seals in the Atlantic and Indian Ocean (Foster, 1999: 42-43).

Capitalism doesn’t just result in environmental destruction and resource depletion but it also divides people. A fine example of this is the memorandum from Lawrence Summers. On December 12, 1991, Lawrence Summers, the chief economist for the World Bank, wrote an internal memo that was leaked to the British publication the Economist on February 8, 1992. In it he says that the World Bank should be “encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed Countries]”, and that “the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable”. He also writes that “the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity” (quoted in Foster, 2002: 60-61). In fewer words: Summers says that people in the Third World are worth less than people in the North, and thus they could be exploited more by the capitalistic world system. But it’s not just in the Third World that capitalism takes the form as environmental racism. In Los Angeles over 70% of African Americans and 50% of Latinos live in areas with the highest amount of air pollution. This can be compared to the 34% of white people living in the same areas (Foster, 1999: 138).

Karl Marx came up with the term “metabolic rift” to explain the rift capitalism have created between social systems and natural systems. This rift, he claimed, led to ecological crisis and the exploitation of the environment. As people moved into cities they lost the contact with nature, and thus they became less likely to consider what the best for the environment was, and how their actions and decisions affected it (McMichael, 2008: 11 and Foster, 1999: 63-64). Marx also noted that as the income for the workers in the cities increased companies (capitalists) searched for cheaper workers outside of the city (Moore, 2000: 136-137). Today when half of the world’s people live in cities this is happening on a much larger and more global scale. More people than ever have lost the direct contact with nature (Satterthwaite, in the Guardian 2007). And instead of companies and corporations looking for cheaper workers in the countryside they now look outside the nation’s borders, mainly in Third World countries.

When it comes to climate change McMichael says that the “only sound solution” is by basically reformulating the generally accepted perspective of development. But he warns that resistance, for what science says needs to be done to tackle the climate crisis, will come from “corporate interests”, “politicians with short-time horizons” but also from strong talks “of neo-liberalism that represents market solutions as commonsense” (McMichael, 2008: 14). He concludes that the “de-carbonization of the material economy will require substantial de-commodification to establish sustainable development, which in turn means the development subject would no longer be the high-mass consumer, but a politically-mobilized social and ecological steward”. And that this time the goal for the “North” is not just to supply and “secure” its home markets with valuable raw materials and other commodities. Now it’s also about supplying the Third World with “environmental repair or caretaker services” to be able to lessen the damages and problems that the system itself has created (McMichael, 2008: 16-17).

Immanuel Wallerstein says that he is “relentlessly pessimistic” on how sustainable development could be possible under capitalism (Hornborg, 2007: 22-23). He also says that we are “in the middle of a transition” away from capitalism to something else. But what that is and if it will be better or worse he do not know. “The outcome will be decided by the political activity of everyone now and in the next twenty-five to fifty years”, he writes (Wallerstein, 2007: 384-385).

Hopefully. Another world is possible.

The full transcript of his speech can be found below:

Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much for that warm welcome. And Yvo de Boer, thank you very much for your very generous introduction. And thank you for your leadership and tireless efforts in combating this crisis. Thank you so much. To all of the ministers, delegates, members of the NGO community, scientists, especially members of the IPCC who are gathered here, to my good friend who has shown such leadership and courage Wangari Maathai who is also here somewhere, and to all of the distinguished guests, this is an unusual moment during this long journey that began 16 years ago in Rio de Janeiro. To all of you who have worked here in Poznan and to the many of you who have worked at conferences throughout this process, thank you for your extraordinary efforts and for your remarkable achievements.

We, the human species, have arrived at a moment of fateful decision. It is unprecedented and in some ways even laughable to imagine that we could actually make a conscious choice as a species. But that is nevertheless the challenge that now faces us because our home, Earth, is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is of course not the planet itself but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings I will not dwell on the science but I want to state a few facts if only to underscore the urgency of our task. We are, after all, in a process of negotiation with one another around the world but it’s important to remind ourselves that we cannot negotiate with the facts. We cannot negotiate with the truth about our situation. We cannot negotiate with the consequences of unrestrained dumping of 70 million tons of global warming pollution into the thin shelf atmosphere surrounding our planet every 24 hours. Scientists have for several years now warned us that we are moving dangerously close to several so-called tipping points that could within less than 10 years make it impossible to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization unless we act quickly.

As many of you here know full well, in virtually all of the mountain ranges of this planet, the glaciers are now melting rapidly in the Alps in the Andes in the Rockies and most ominously in the Himalayas which contain number 100 times as much ice and snow of all of the mountains here in Europe.

The leading Chinese scientist who studies ice, professor Yao Tandong calls the Tibetan plateau the water tower of Asia. As you know it feeds the great rivers of Asia, the Indus, the Ganges, the Brahmaputra, the Salween and the Irawati, the Mekong, the Yangtze and the Yellow. 1.4 billion people depend for more than half of their drinking water on the rivers and spring systems that flow from the ice of the Tibetan plateau which is now melting at an alarming rate. Because the climate crisis has also increased the rate of soil moisture evaporation around the world and concentrated rainfall in shorter periods of time, shifting the seasons during which it falls, there is increased desertification and longer droughts, increasing stress on all of the people who live in the dry land regions of our world. Many shallow lakes, including prominently lake Chad, have disappeared. The Great Lakes of Africa are undergoing dramatic change, the Great Lakes of North America are losing their ice cover, and the water level is dropping dramatically. Last year 2000 scientists gathered at the food and agriculture organization in Rome to discuss their fear of an impending crisis in the Mediterranean as it becomes saltier and as warmer water reaches its depths, threatening in the future to turn it into a stagnant sea if this process continues. The dumping of 25 million tons of CO2 into the oceans of the world every day, and the increasing acidification of the ocean water along with rising temperature is putting stress on the ocean Fisheries throughout our planet. And as you know, the warming ocean waters are also causing stronger typhoons and cyclones and hurricanes. Typhoon Saomai was the strongest to hit China in more than 50 years, two of the three strongest histories in history hit south Asia within the last 3 years, one of them killing 20,000 people in Myanmar. We have had such strong storms in North America as well, and in South America where Brazil had the first hurricane in recorded history. Massive flooding has resulted at record rates on every continent. Last year more than a dozen countries in Africa suffered the consequences of such flooding. Last year Mexico had record flooding. We have seen comparable events in Europe and throughout the world. Heat waves continue. Two winters ago was the hottest winter in the history of recorded atmospheric measurements. 20 of the 21 hottest years in recorded history have occurred in the last 25 years. The university of Tel Aviv recently published a new study predicting that with each 1 degree increase in temperature there is a 10 percent increase in lightning, along with man-made causes, we are now seeing record fires as dryer soils and dryer vegetation leads to spreading fires in Greece, for example last year and in many other countries as well. The extinction crisis is tearing at the fabric of the web of life, and the scientific consensus that we must take action was strengthened by the IPCC yet again earlier this year. So the science is clear, and we are faced with a sharp contrast between two notional rates of change, first, the rate at which we are approaching a point of no return in terms of systems collapse, and second, the slower rate at which we have been addressing the problem of how to reduce the emissions that are causing this crisis. We are moving up against a physical standard that doesn’t give credit for a good try. We will succeed or we will fail. At every time of great challenge, we as human beings first of all must resolve a struggle in our own hearts between hope and fear. That struggle is palpable here during this meeting at Poznan. The causes for fear, pessimism, discouragement and doubt have been discussed in whispered conversations among the delegates here. The global recession, we are told, makes the task of solving the climate crisis more difficult. The businesses lobbies in the developed nations we are told have too much power and may divert leaders from their obligation to safeguard our future. The prices for oil — the prices for oil and coal have, in a cyclical and destructive pattern, once again risen to new highs in the first half of this year, contributing to the causes of the economic downturn, only then to once again plummet to levels that threaten to discourage investments necessary to develop renewable sources of energy and effective measures to improve conservation and efficiency. We are also told that even though people throughout the world are more aware of the unprecedented threat posed by the climate crisis, many still seem not to feel the appropriate sense of urgency that should cause them to demand the emergency measures that the scientists have so clearly told us governments must take as quickly as possible. The gap between rich and poor as we are all aware is not being closed with sufficient speed to build the unity of purpose so desperately needed as a basis for supporting global action. These are all causes for doubt, for fear, for pessimism. But in spite of these fears and doubts, you have continued your work and have continued to make steady progress in resolving many issues that once seemed intractable. Thank you. And even though the steps that you have taken and that have been taken by nations around the world sometimes seem small and even though the progress seems painfully slow, it is worth taking stock and recognizing that this great enterprise that began 16 years ago has now taken us to a vantage point from which we can see the basis for success because in spite of the remaining obstacles and difficulties, I believe that the causes for hope and optimism are greater than the causes for doubt and discouragement, and I believe the road to Copenhagen is now clear.

Let me outline for you the basis for the hope and optimism that I feel in my heart. In the midst of this synchronized global recession, there is an emerging consensus throughout the world that the best, indeed the only way to effectively combat the recession is with a synchronized global stimulus and in nation after nation, leaders have concluded that they must design a green stimulus and build the infrastructure for renewable sources of energy and put people to work retro-fitting homes and buildings with CO2 reducing insulation and windows and lighting and more efficient technologies. China, a second cause for hope, China once seem by many as a looming obstacle to the world’s effort to reduce CO2 emissions has itself announced a green stimulus of $600 billion over the next 2 years. Chinese leaders are mobilizing a national effort to introduce CO2 reduction initiatives and have already begun the largest tree planting program the world has ever seen. And in contrast to it 2 years ago, no one at this conference has said China is standing in the way of progress. China is ready to join in leading the world toward a solution for this crisis. Much more needs to be done, of course. Much more needs to be done even in countries that have in the last few years provided leadership. The struggle between hope and fear is taking place even today here in Europe. And yet we hear the reports that leaders once resistant to fiscal stimulus are now calling for massive new initiatives to create jobs in ways that also reduce CO2 and the Secretary general of the United Nations who has provided such tremendous leadership for the world in this process has himself called for what he terms a green new deal in the world.

Developing countries that were once reluctant to join in the first phases of a global response to the climate crisis have themselves now become leaders in demanding action and in taking bold steps on their own initiative. Just last week Brazil proposed an impressive new plan to halt the destructive deforestation in that nation.

Thanks to your efforts in Bali and in the continuing discussions, we now know how to integrate the protection of forests in a global agreement that also sharply reduces industrial sources of global warming pollution. Yes, much more work needs to be done, but you have created the basis for integrating the different kinds of solutions that must come together to solve this crisis. Another source of optimism, scientists and engineers and entrepreneurs in every part of the world have been busy and productive in developing exciting new ex-technologies that will dramatically improve our ability to create renewable energy, they are creating the basis for increasing living standards while simultaneously reducing pollution. In my country there have also been promising and optimistic changes. State governments, including the State of California, our largest state, have shown leadership by passing binding laws requiring the mandatory reduction of CO2. 884 U.S. cities have now embraced the principles of the Kyoto protocol without waiting for the Federal Government to act. The United States — dozens of proposed coal firing generating plants have in the last 2 years been cancelled because of grassroots opposition and public pressure to adopt renewable sources of energy.

The United States Supreme Court, which I must tell you in my opinion does not always reach the right conclusion, decided earlier this year in a ruling that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is required by law to regulate CO2 emissions. No new coal fired generating plant can be approved without a decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

1 year ago this week in Bali at another extraordinary moment during this process, I asked you to anticipate the possibility that there would be significant changes in the approach of the U.S. national government to the climate crisis because of our oncoming elections.

Just prior to coming here to Poznan, I went to Chicago for a meeting with president-elect Barack Obama and he emphasized that the climate crisis will be a top priority of his administration. We discussed how to create millions of new jobs in a new clean energy economy, and he emphasized that once he is president, the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations and help lead toward a successful conclusion.

I would like to read to you some of the public statements that president-elect Barack Obama has made since the election. He said, “…the time for delay is over. The time for denial is over. We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now, that this is a matter of urgency and national security and it has to be dealt with in a serious way. That’s what I intend my administration to do.”

He said in another statement, “The science is beyond dispute. The facts are clear…. Washington has failed to show leadership. That will change when I take office. My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change… That will start with a Federal cap and trade system… It will not only help us bring about a clean energy future saving our planet, it will also help us transform our industries and steer our country out of this economic crisis….Solving this problem will require all of us working together….Once I take office, you can be sure that the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations and help lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change.”

Don’t discount these words. Will there be difficulties? Of course. Not only in my country but in every country. You know that better than most. Mahatma Gandhi, one of the most inspirational leaders in the history of the world said halfway through the last century that the most powerful force in global politics is what he called “satyagraha” which I am told translates into my language roughly as “truth force”. The reason why you have been able to continue moving forward is because you understand the truth about the crisis that we face.

One of Mahatma Gandhi’s — one of those inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said in discussing human rights, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. In that very same way, we now face a crisis that makes it abundantly clear that increased CO2 emissions anywhere are a threat to the integrity of this planet’s climate balance everywhere. As a result, the old divide between north and south, between developed countries and developing countries is a divide that must become obsolete. We must link poverty reduction with the sharp reduction of CO2 emissions, including reduced emissions from deforestation with reform of the clean development mechanism and adequate funding for adaptation that is essential and must be financed even though obviously mitigation and prevention are the primary task because without them adaptation would ultimately prove to be impossible.

We hear a lot also about capacity building. A phrase that is almost exclusively used with respect to the developing countries and indeed capacity building is important there. But I want to talk about the need for capacity building in the developed countries as well. The political systems in the developed world have become sclerotic. We have to overcome the paralysis that has prevented us from acting and focused unblinkingly on this crisis as opposed to spending so much time on OJ Simpson and Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith. In this struggle between our hopes for success and the doubts that constantly complicate this task, we have to call upon the people of the world to speak up more forcefully, to put their weight in the balance of the scales that are measured by world leaders. The truth is that the goals we are reaching toward are incredibly difficult, and even a goal of 450 parts per million, which seems so difficult today, is inadequate. We will soon need to toughen that goal to 350 parts per million. We understand that. But we have to understand as delegates in this process understand all too clearly the difference between stating the goal and reaching the goal. As governments come to grips with the very difficult work that has to be performed in order to reach even a goal of 450 parts per million, the task can seem very daunting. But for those of us who do understand that the goal should be tougher still, let us remember that the early steps in a process of reaching a goal of 450 parts per million and a process to reach 350 parts per million, the early steps are very similar, and we know from experience that once the process of change begins, once the momentum shifts, once the decisions are arrived at, then the task often becomes easier in the doing. As we start making these changes, we will see that they do strengthen our economies, they do create millions of new jobs, and they do improve the standard of living. To those who are fearful — to those who are fearful that it is too difficult to conclude this process with a new treaty by the deadline that has been established for 1 year from now in Copenhagen, I say it can be done. It must be done. Let’s finish this process at Copenhagen. Don’t take the pressure off. Let’s make sure that we succeed. Because ultimately this really is not a political issue. It is of course a moral issue, and even a spiritual issue, however you understand that word. And our different traditions lead us to different ways of describing a spiritual challenge. But this one affects the survival of human civilization. It is simply put, a question of right versus wrong, and we have to bring to bear that truth force and that moral courage necessary to do what is sometimes seen as impossible. Very simply put, it is wrong for this generation to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every future generation. That realization — that realization must carry us forward. Our children have a right to hold us to a higher standard when the future of all human civilization is hanging in the balance. They deserve better, and politicians who sit on their hands and do nothing to confront the greatest challenge humankind has ever faced. This crisis does offer us the chance to experience what few generations have had the privilege of experiencing, a generational mission, a compelling moral purpose, a shared cause and the opportunity to put aside the pettiness and conflict of politics and narrower concerns to embrace a genuine moral generational mission. I believe that it is time between now and the gathering in Copenhagen 1 year from now for heads of state to become personally involved in meeting several times between Poznan and Copenhagen. I don’t think that they can stay disengaged from this process any longer.

I am very optimistic about the leadership of the new Danish chair that will preside over the meeting in Copenhagen, and even though I do not have the opportunity to speak formally for the people of my country, I would like to relay to you a message that I heard from the people of the United States of America this year, that I think is very relevant to the task the world is facing over this next year. Yes, we can. Thank you.

Photo credit: World Economic Forum

George Monbiot writes today on the Guardian that the new EU emissions agreement is a disaster and calls it carbon colonialism.

So much for the Europeans leading the way on climate change. Even as our governments claim they want to drag the world into an effective climate agreement in Poznan, they have just pulled Europe out of one in Brussels.

The agreement they have just reached is a disaster. The 20% carbon cut they promise by 2020 falls miles short of what’s needed, and they’ll be able to buy most of it from abroad anyway. All this means, in a world which has to eliminate most of its carbon pollution, is that other countries, which have sold their easiest reductions to us, will then find it harder to make emissions cuts of their own. It’s carbon colonialism, in which Europe picks the low-hanging fruit in developing countries, leaving them with much tougher choices later on.

Monbiot blames the failure on Germany, which he calls the new dirty man of Europe. Monbiot says that Angela Merkel is prepared to go green only when it doesn’t hurt big business.

[…]Who has pushed hardest for these exemptions? The great green German chancellor Angela Merkel. The British government’s environmental policies are wildly contradictory, but they look almost coherent by comparison to Germany’s. In some respects it’s the most progressive country in the EU, with a federal scheme to insulate the entire housing stock and an investment in wind power which puts the UK (with far greater wind resources) to shame. In other respects it has become the dirty man of Europe. It was Merkel who demanded weaker standards for fuel efficiency in cars, Merkel who pushed hardest for a €40bn bail-out of the motor manufacturers, Merkel who now insists that the big cement, steel and chemicals companies are allowed to get away without paying.

[…]Shame on you, Mrs Merkel. With the help of Donald Tusk, Silvio Berlusconi and one or two other Neanderthals, you have now messed it up for everyone.

Read it: Germany: the new dirty man of Europe

Related: EU leaders fail to agree on a strong climate deal

Photo credit: rockcohen

Leaders from the European Union (EU) have just agreed on a new watered-down climate deal to tackle global warming. The actual emissions cuts could amount to as little as 4% by 2020.

Yesterday UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in Poznan that “the world is watching us. The next generation is counting on us. We must not fail.” He also called for the EU to show the way and leadership on the climate crisis for other countries. Unfortunately it seems the short-sighted “leaders” of Europe ignored him. Instead of 30% emission cuts by 2020 the EU leaders only agreed on cuts by 20% by 2020, compared to 1990 levels.

But the actual emission cuts could end up being as little as 4% by 2020, environmental groups warned. That is because of special exemptions for dirty industries in Europe as well as allowing cheap emission cuts overseas to be counted to the EU total. The latter has been heavily pushed by the new Swedish right-wing government who has called for as much as 88% of the EU emission cuts to be allowed to do overseas in development countries.

“EU leaders will probably trumpet the deal on climate change as a great success, but in reality this is a big failure in EU ambition,” said Delia Villagrasa, Senior Advisor to WWF.

“Basically, Europe just decided to off-set about two thirds of its own greenhouse gas emissions, to have consumers pay for emissions permits that polluting companies get for free and to avoid supporting poorer countries in the fight to climate change. This is not quite the third industrial revolution we were expecting,

“The result of this race to the bottom is that Europe will reduce its own greenhouses gas emissions significantly less than the proclaimed 20% target by 2020.”

EU leaders on the other hand have said the new climate deal is “historic” and “ambitious”.

EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso called the plans “the most ambitious proposals anywhere in the world”, saying that “Europe has today passed its credibility test. We mean business when we talk about climate.”

And French President Nicolas Sarkozy told a press conference in Brussels that “this is historic” and that it “was difficult up to the last minute” to reach an agreement on the deal.

“A flagship E.U. policy now has no pilot, a mutinous crew and numerous holes in its fuselage,” said Sanjeev Kumar of the environment group WWF.

“This is a dark day for European climate policy. European heads of state and government have reneged on their promises and turned their backs on global efforts to fight climate change,” Climate Action Network Europe, Friends of the Earth Europe, Greenpeace, Oxfam and WWF said in a joint statement today.

“Angela Merkel, Silvio Berlusconi, Donald Tusk and Nicolas Sarkozy should be ashamed. They have chosen the private profits of polluting industry over the will of European citizens, the future of their children and the plight of millions of people around the world. The Parliament can and should amend the worst parts of today’s deal.”

In the first of a remarkable series of video interviews, Britain’s leading green commentator, George Monbiot, charges the UN’s leading climate change official with lacking ambition for a global emissions deal, and takes him to task over expensive carbon offset schemes and his support for the US president, George Bush. In the coming weeks, Monbiot takes on the bosses of Shell and the International Energy Agency and more.

Watch George Monbiot meets Yvo de Boer on the Guardian.

Photo credit: World Economic Forum

Avaaz, an independent and not-for-profit global campaigning organization, says that European leadership on climate is “essential to secure us all a global deal” in the UN climate conference in Poznań, Poland. Unfortunately have Germany, Poland and Italy so far been the “main blockers” during the climate negotiations for strong European actions.

But Avaaz says that Poland has begun to change their mind and that now only Germany and Italy are left “standing in the way”. And so they want you to help them put pressure on Chancellor Angela Merkel “to do the smart thing for the environment and the economy”.

Germany is the key – Chancellor Merkel is normally a climate champion, but has caved to industry, fearing for German jobs. She needs to hear from us that a Green Recovery is the answer to both our climate and our economic crises.

Merkel cares a great deal about her international reputation, which is why Avaaz has delivered our 150,000-strong petition and protested at her international meetings with the Poles. But now for the punch: an Avaaz commissioned opinion poll which reveals that 85% of Merkel’s own people are calling for her to show leadership in securing a strong climate deal. Together, we can help push Merkel over the edge — follow this link to leave her a quick message encouraging her to do the smart thing for the environment and the economy: http://www.avaaz.org/en/merkel_lead_on_climate/

[…]But despite mounting pressure, Germany is still arguing that emissions allowances should be free for industry. Merkel doesn’t seem to understand the power of a green lead recovery or that green-collar jobs are the new growth industry. Instead she is catering to her country’s cement, chemical, steel and car industries.

But if we can convince her to shift gears, an EU package will be all but sealed and with it a platform for a global climate plan. We’ve got to move decisively before Merkel publicly announces her final position later this week. We need to send clear and unambiguous messages demanding that she doesn’t stand in the way of a global deal. Let her know that we need her back on side.

As our leaders delay and lower their ambitions for action, our planet and our people are placed at greater risk. At this crucial time, our role is to let our representatives now that we wont allow another global climate talks to fail, that we have the solutions to the climate crisis, and we expect nothing less than a strong and binding deal to achieve it.

Click here to tell Merkel to show leadership in securing a strong climate deal.

Below you can find videos from the press briefings for the first week:

Poznan opening press briefing

Briefing the media on the opening day of the Conference, Yvo de Boer emphasized the crucial role of finance in reaching a long-term solution to climate change. Advancing the commitment of industrialized countries is intimately linked to enhancing the engagement of developing countries, he said. Poznań would show progress on ongoing work under the Convention and allow Ministers to present their vision of long-term cooperative action, he explained. His expectations for the conference – being attended by almost 11.000 participants included the launch of the Adaptation Fund, as well as significant advances on technology transfer, the CDM and the issue of deforestation.

Mr. de Boer highlighted two important signals received in 2007: The IPCC report, confirming the reality and impacts of climate change; and the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, which said failure to act would equal economic failure on the scale of two World Wars and the Great Depression combined.

Poznan press briefing on the second day

At a press briefing on the second day of the Conference, Yvo de Boer expressed satisfaction with the results of the opening day, with all major groups having launched their work and the formation of contact groups now underway.

The group on long -term cooperative action got off to a positive start, he said, although there was a sense that Governments must speed up work, also on the issue of a shared vision for long-term cooperative action. He added that Governments were keen to move forward.

The working group under the Kyoto Protocol also got off to a good start. Many countries have emphasized that the focus of this groups work at Poznań should be on the commitments of industrialized countries.

The large assembly document of proposals made by Parties was welcomed by many countries, Mr. de Boer said. Different chapters of this document will be discussed in various contact groups. He pointed out that during discussions on the first day, many Parties expressed the need to boost technology transfer and to focus on removing the obstacles to technology transfer.

Poznan press briefing on the third day

The market-based mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol were highlighted by Yvo de Boer at todays press briefing; Parties in Poznań are considering ways to enhance the existing mechanisms and looking at the role mechanisms will play in the future.

Discussions continued yesterday on a shared vision on long-term cooperative action. Mr. de Boer said that during the discussions, developing countries gave a strong call for industrialized countries to show leadership and ambition in emission reductions.

On the issue of technology, he pointed to the strategic programme of the Global Environment Facility to scale up technology transfer, with many countries calling for its quick implementation. Underling the importance of both financial and technical support for all developing countries, Mr. de Boer said delegates in Poznań were also assessing how to scale up financing, including the role of both public and private financing.

The reporting of climate change actions by developing countries was also taken up at todays briefing. On this important issue, Mr. de Boer said that delegates were discussing ways to support the preparation of these reports.

Poznan press briefing on the fourth day

At todays press briefing in Poznań , Yvo de Boer gave an update on a number of areas under discussion, including Adaptation. An important issue was how to increase funding for Adaptation, particularly for Least Developed Countries, he said, adding that many countries had expressed their frustration over difficulties in accessing funding from the Least Developed Countries Fund.

During negotiations on mitigation potentials, Mr. de Boer said the need for developed countries to show leadership on reducing emissions was voiced strongly, amid criticism of the low level of ambition being shown by these countries.

With regard to a shared vision on long-term cooperation, he spoke of emerging convergence in a number of areas. There was agreement, for example, that it should be based on scientific findings; that it should involve specific targets for industrialized countries; and that the main building blocks should be mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology.

Delegates were also moving forward on the issue of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD); an important element of a strengthened climate change agreement.

Poznan press briefing on the fifth day

Briefing the media on day five of the Conference, Yvo de Boer said that serious discussions were emerging to launch the intensified negotiations needed to reach the 2009 deadline in Copenhagen.

Many delegates were highlighting the need to move to a low-carbon society, citing the emission reduction range of -25 to -40 by 2020 over 1990 levels for industrialized countries, and asking these countries to show ambition and leadership with regard to these targets.

There was agreement that financial mechanisms, including insurance, can play an important role within a strengthened response to climate change, and that financial mechanisms for risk management in developing countries needed to be scaled up.

Parties were also considering how to increase funds for adaptation through the carbon market, with discussions focusing on extending the current 2% levy on mitigation projects under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to the other Kyoto mechanisms, Joint Implementation and Emissions Trading, Mr. de Boer said. He added that the inclusion of a limited number of Carbon Capture and Storage pilot projects under the CDM was also under discussion.

It’s 3 in the morning in Poland and I need your help with an experiment. Can you take 2 minutes watch an animation and help take over YouTube?

A little background: starting a week ago, a few members of the international 350.org team have converged for the annual UN Climate Conference. It’s a little crazy here–over 9,000 people representing 190 countries have gathered to negotiate our collective future. Things are changing by the hour, and there’s both bad news and good news to report.

The bad news first: lots of countries still don’t get it, and some (most notably, the EU) are using delay tactics to postpone action, squandering time that scientists say we simply do not have.

Now for the good news: over 49 of the least developed countries (that’s more than a quarter of the world’s nations) just announced support for a 350 target. This is AMAZING, as last year a 350 goal wasn’t even on the map. It’s testament to your hard work–and the very real threats these countries are facing right now–that we’ve come so far in such a short time.

More good news: there is a movement bubbling up here–scores of people are working with us, both inside and outside of the UN, to campaign for strong climate action in the face of stiff political opposition. This Saturday, we’re all going to join hundreds of activists in Poland–and thousands of people around the world–for the Global Day of Action for the Climate.

You can be part of this. The first option is to look for an action taking place near you on Saturday, December 6th.

The second option is the experiment I referred to: I need your help taking over YouTube with climate change videos, as part of a collaborative campaign with some of our partner organizations.

It’s an unconventional tactic, but sometimes, simply getting people to listen and talk makes a difference–that is, if you can get the right conversation going.

Today, we’re asking you to be part of this conversation by commenting on a 90-second animation about 350. If we can get enough comments and ratings, we can climb the YouTube charts. With your help, we’ll make YouTube all about climate change, even if just for one day.

Our video is a 90-second animation that explains 350–the science, the art, the movement–without using a single word. I think you’ll like it. Please watch it, comment, and pass it on.

People are always talking about how we need to reach outside the choir. YouTube is the third most popular site on the internet. If we can make a splash there, we’ll be well on our way to spreading 350 all around the world.

So please, watch the video today and take a minute to comment on it, and help start a climate conversation.

Thanks for all you do,

Jon and the rest of the 350.org team.

Watch the video:

You can watch the video on YouTube as well.

The Poznań Climate Change Conference provides the opportunity to draw together the advances made in 2008 and move from discussion to negotiation mode in 2009. At COP 14/CMP 4 in Poznań, Parties are expected to:

• Agree on a plan of action and programmes of work for the final year of negotiations after a year of comprehensive and extensive discussions on crucial issues relating to future commitments, actions and cooperation
• Make significant progress on a number of on-going issues required to enhance further the implementation of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, including capacity-building for developing countries, reducing emissions from deforestation (REDD), technology transfer and adaptation.
• Advance understanding and commonality of views on “shared vision” for a new climate change regime
• Strengthen commitment to the process and the agreed timeline

Such an outcome at Poznań would build momentum towards an agreed outcome at Copenhagen in December 2009.

Key dates:

1 December: Opening of the conference. Opening sessions of the AWG-LCA, AWG-KP, SBI and SBSTA

8 December: No formal meetings related to the process will take place, due to observation of the Islamic feast of Eid Al-Adha. (This has been shifted from Tuesday, 9 December, to Monday, 8 December.) All formal meetings currently scheduled for Monday 8 December will be rescheduled to Tuesday, 9 December, at the same times.

10 December: Closing day of the 29th sessions of SBSTA and SBI, the 4th session of the AWG-LCA and the resumed sixth session of the AWG-KP

11-12 December: High-Level Segment of COP 14 and CMP 4.