Comment (22)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
TechnoratiWhen I say green, you say money!
The push for an international treaty at Copenhagen has little to do with climate change and much to do with money.
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said that achieving a deal at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference may not be possible. Good, I say and I hope that deal is never possible, because while I don't know if the Secretary General has read the deal, I have and it scares me.
I can already hear the cyberscream starting, chants of "climate change denier!" being hurled my way, nasty comments are already being crafted and I haven't even explained myself yet. Such, unfortunately is the level of debate surrounding climate change; the thing we used to call global warming.
The deal being negotiated at Copenhagen has very little to do with climate change; it may touch on it, but it also uses this issue to put in place a massive world wide redistribution of wealth. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper still takes flak for calling the Kyoto Protocol "a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations." If Harper were to say the same thing about Copenhagen, he'd be right.
Copenhagen is short for The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (taking place December 7-18th), a conference and international treaty all wrapped up into one that beyond the surface has very little to do with climate change, but don't take my word for it, listen to the supporters.
Australian scientist, author and climate change activist Tim Flannery came to Ottawa recently to promote his latest book, Now or Never and to press the Canadian government to sign on to Copenhagen. Now I must say that compared to many Canadian green activists, Flannery seems highly reasonable and a nice chap; he even has a sense of humour, a quality that seems to have leeched out of our own green movement some time in the ‘90s.
When I asked Flannery about the notion reported in such climate change boosting newspapers as Britain's left-wing Guardian, that the deal would mean a massive transfer of wealth from the developed world to the developing world, Flannery didn't flinch. In fact he called this essential to the deal.
"We all too often mistake the nature of those negotiations in Copenhagen. We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case," said Flannery. "The negotiations now ongoing towards the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and they will influence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society, our relationship with the developing world, our relationship with the environment as well."
So there you have it, a man who is firmly on the side of climate change, who runs his own council full of business executives who push for a legally binding treaty at Copenhagen, saying this all has little to do with climate change. So what is it all about then?
It's about money, plain and simple. While most of the focus in the media is on the attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the behind the scenes negotiations are about how much developed countries will have to pay to developing ones. Ban Ki Moon says that the $150 billion USD in annual contributions to help developed countries adapt to climate change will have to be "scaled up." That's a fancy way of saying the bill just got bigger.
According to the draft treaty, in sections pushed by Flannery and the Secretary General, developed countries, in addition to being required to cut their own emissions of greenhouse gasses by 25 to 40 percent by 2020, must also make several different kinds of payment s to the developing world. There is the payment for historic or past emissions of greenhouse gases; that unspecified amount will be due almost immediately. In addition, the agreement also says (page 16, sect. 33), "Annex I Parties [developed countries] shall provide new and additional financial resources to meet the full costs incurred by developing country Parties" for any undertakings to curb emissions in the developing world. None of these payments, according to the agreement, should come from money currently set aside from foreign aid money to the developed world. Also, green technologies developed by wealthy nations must be transferred, without compensation, to developing nations to help them deal with climate change.
So, the 23 countries deemed "developed" shall pay for their own past emissions, future emissions, the reduction of their own emissions, the reduction of the emissions of developing countries and for the mitigation of any damages caused by climate change in developing nations. They will also hand over potentially lucrative technology and continue to pay aid to the developing world. Have I mentioned that India and China are among the countries that will benefit from all of these payments as their robust economies are considered developing and are therefore in need of support? If boosters of the deal have their way, not only will developed nations pay to see their jobs exported to India and China but neither country will need to sign on to binding targets for reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions.
Over the last weekend in October, tens of thousands of mostly young people around the world staged events, some 5,000 in 182 countries, calling for "an ambitious, fair, and binding global climate deal." Like most people concerned about the environment, it's doubtful these young people have any idea what is in the proposed treaty. I doubt most world leaders have read it, but if they think this deal is about climate change, they should listen to Dr. Flannery. He'd tell them this is about more, much more.
Brian Lilley is the Ottawa Bureau Chief for radio stations Newstalk 1010 in Toronto and CJAD 800 in Montreal. Follow Brian on Twitter to get the latest as it happens.
Photo credits: Tim Flannery photo, Mark Coulson, 5th World Conference of Science Journalists. Ban Ki-moon photo, World Economic Forum. Both published under Creative Commons Licence.
Thanks Cyprian for the interesting points you have raised. If you were to read my first post on this issue you would find that I was commenting on the article, the deal being negotiated at Copenhagen - no mention was made of Kenya or Africa. metobo n. shifted the emphasis to Africa when I spoke about India.
Yes, I was referring to Kenyan Australians now settled in Kenya. They do receieve the Aus pensions and that’s good.
Asian countries like India, Singapore and Malaysia that were once occupied are now doing quite well. I am sure that conditions will improve for you guys soon. The isuues here are important on their own, and should not be confused with climate change.
mal ‘f Kenyans believe that pension payments should not go to foreign countries then they should legislate accordingly.
wen we talk about legislation in our country against such precolonial agreements, the threat is, we are under irrevocable international treaties. such like the pension agreements, buying back ‘OUR’ land from Colonial SETTLERS, R.NILE treaty (we are the main feeders via kenyan rivers of the nile but cannot use those waters) initially pegged as conditions for independence. try doing it the only way possible(mugabe-style) and u are a pariah in the international community. where is the justice even not social just natural justice??? for crying out loud. no kenyan who fought for the crown in WW2 gets pension infact they got disposed their land and it was given to the british settlers.
but in all fairness that we be taught to fish… good one teach me how to fish then wen am good enough and have the fish put restrictions on me selling to you because am too better an d too cheap for the european farmer and coarse me into exploitative agreements with the EU ( EPAs- no subsidy for african farmers while the EU farmer gets subsidy soaked) all africa needs is not AID but TRADE (no restrictions or subsidy for EU farmers or we also be allowed to have subsidy,can we even afford subsidy????)
And mark my words no KENYAN receives AUSTRALIAN pension unless they are Australians living in kenya.
p.s. local projects have tiny multiplier effect because the INGOs administering them use more than half the money to pay expertriates and further 20% on administrative issues living a paltry 30% for development so much for AID.
Mal?? answer this ‘teach me to fish and then when i get fish! lock the door to the market because the student you taught is better’ how do we overcome that?
Developing nations do need assistance of one kind or another - depending upon their circumstances. I am a firm believer in people being taught how to fish rather than being given fish. Many wonderful projects have helped local communities immensely. They should also work on a bigger scale.
As far as emissions are concerned, India and China are seeking exemptions because they still consider themselves to be developing countries. But are they?
Kenya would be paying pensions to British citizens who had worked in that country. I suppose there would be many living in Kenya who are receiving British and Australian pensions. If Kenyans believe that pension payments should not go to foreign countries then they should legislate accordingly.
hi
listening to the writer was so sad that they think social redistribution is the evil brought about by the developing nations.As usual bring in china and india and shipping jobs there and u have a potent gun-powder keg for the ‘developed’ nations masses.
we all forget the ‘developed’ got their tag by the exploitation of africa and asian countries without ANY payments including slave labour!!! i wonder if the two ‘developing’ giants india and china should stall plans for over 60 other ‘developing’ countries.how righteous!!lets get real here wat problem stalls everything is fear of competition from the dragon in the far east and that sends shivers in the spine of western capitals. all said the emerging talent from africa will shock the west, even more, than the chinese did. self awareness is creeping in a very good way.
p.s. the government of kenya is paying british colonial pensioners over $20M as an obligation. wow thats so ‘fair’ i colonise u and pay u pension for that..
Why should developed” countries have to pay for their past emissions? It is possible that the then forsts and other factors would have absorbed them. Should then older countries pay more than the relatively newer ones?
Emissions should not be assessed only on a per capita basis. I believe it should be per capita per hectare.
India and China. which have have launched rockets to the moon, possess nuclear weapons and have massive industries, should not be treated as developing countries. Their problems are of a social nature and so should be addresses accordingly.
Hi Lucy,
I’ve been out of the Mercatornet loop for a few days and not paying attention to the comments. Far from putting you in a box of any type or trying to close doors and stop change I am merely trying to show what this agreement is really about.
When a group of African countries protest a lack of action as happened in Barcelona this week or the G77 fo developing countries walks out on Canada’s presentationin Bangkok, it is assumed and reported that this is because the mean old countries won’t make changes to deal with emissions. No mention is made that these protests might be about self-interest over lost billions, billions that would go to malfunctioning states already reliant on foreign largese. Do you really think Mugabe will do good things with his climate change booty under this system or that the UN is best suited to manage all this?
What Kyoto and Copenhagen have done is shifted the focus of the environmental movement away from individual action affecting change, where it was in the 80s to the idea that only nation states can stop this. Balderdash. If we all take actions to lower waste, and that includes rejecting a rampant consumer lifestyle, things will change. Instead I see people demanding the government change but refusing to change themselves. I also see political leaders call for climate action and then push for greater trade with China, a trade arrangement dependent on cheap oil to ship cheap goods around the world.
Thanks Lucy,
I will look at the sites you mention as soon as I get a clear moment
or two, but in the mean time I would love it if you took the time to watch
fall of the Republic (I left a link for it in this thread) for the sake
of further conversation.
Hi Lucy,
Just like you I think we have not been good caretakers of our environment. And increased CO2 level probably prove it. it the whole overselling of the issue that is the uncomfortable thing. it as if Copenhagen will end the increase in CO2 and the warming trend or definitely stop the effect. It is under this hype that other funny policies (population control, transfer of wealth) are being pushed.
Some words of Benedict XVI may be helpful:‘the way humanity treats the environment influences the way it treats itself, and vice versa.’
Lucy - the 350 Event you provied a link for will do what exactly??? Sure it’ll be a fun day out for many, they’ll be able to clap and cheer more Junk Scientists and Environmental Activists who get up on their podiums and high horses, but oh pleeeeeease…...
Read the facts not the ‘spin’. Not an ounce of common sense in any of their so-called scientific facts links. Lucy, you say you are young, perhaps a student with an enquiring mind. Go beyond the propaganda and do your own balanced research - it’s all there on the internet - seek and you will find.
350 by the way refers to the CO2 level in the atmosphere - ie the actual level of CO2 as a constituent gas in the atmosphere is 0.05% - this really is quite a miniscule amount and I would be far more worried if levels were to be found to be decreasing because you know what - WITHOUT CO2 ALL LIFE ON EARTH WOULD CEASE TO EXIST.
No CO2 = No green plants
No green plants = No photosynthesis
No photosynthesis = No oxygen
No oxygen = No Human or Animal life
Even if CO2 were at several times the current 350ppm level it would be nothing but beneficial for the world - read Professor David Bellamy a remowned Botanist on this issue. His comment on CO2 and Global Warming years ago was “Poppycock!”
Finally I’m all for new energy producing technology. All this rhetoric about ban this and ban that fossil fuel. Fine, but tell me, how many new Nuclear Power Stations (very clean source of electrical power with proper controls on nuclear fuel recycling and storage) have been built to reduce dependancy on coal fired power stations??? In England NONE!
Less ideological pompous rhetoric and more action please Mr Brown.
Thanks Karen!
We share the same interest in the continuing conversation and for individual initiative- its wonderful to hear of your established business, this is a very inspiring action!
My previous post was directed at the article’s author who I feel is closing the doors to healthy debate.
There is a website similar to what you have suggested: http://www.corpwatch.org/section.php?id=102
For me, I am currently working as part of a youth press agency dedicated to uncovering the actions and solutions coming out of the COP-15 (above a beyond the climate agreement that will dominate the mainstream press) http://www.g-1billion.org/. I hope you will join the conversation there!
Agreeing to the article’s supposition and noting that most if not all the developed countries are currently in the hole, the solution is simple. First, confiscate all the money from any NGO which either lobbies for global warming or lobbies against it. If this still does not satisfy the greed of the developing nations do the same with all those countries having a surplus rather than a deficit, since they presumably used their smarts to get their surplus they can use those same smarts to eventually recoup. It is clear that there will still be a shortage since the amounts secured are only a drop in the bucket of that required. The only place left will be the millionaires of the world; hence, confiscate all their wealth except for one million dollars(they’ll still be millionaires) and if they got their fortunes legitimately they should have no trouble recouping.
Assuming the weak assumption that the climate models are accurate,(ignore the margins of error) the economic solutions proposed, even by their own projections, do not achieve any serious reductions in CO2 or temperatures at huge cost even by very weak economic models. Having spent a life-time improving my own environments, I understand the emotionalism and the spiritual feelings of doing something worthwhile. Yet look at Professor McKitrick’s assessment of the economic forcaste given recently in Canada. “The models are unreal DR.Ross McKitrick, , November 03, 2009”. Instead of improving our water and land resources, we achieve nothing beneficial by sending billions off-shore. Use the feelings to analyize the actual impact with much more sound assumptions.
Hi Lucy,
The problem is that as you get older you realise that government are not good at achieving results and are often very two faced in their dealings with the public.
I have worked promoting organic food production in Australia and the business I first set up has now turned into 3 businesses turning over 5 million dollars a year in certified organically grown produce. I have and always will care about the earth.
If you will not consider the conversation of people who are very justifiably scared of corruption and double speak in the system I don’t know how you can consider that you want a conversation at all. Did you watch the movie at the link I left? I feel that was far from closing doors but a brilliant starting point for discussion?
If we want true change to decrease pollution and bring in sustainable lifestyle practices why doesn’t someone start a website setting up world wide surprise strike boycotts of corporations who are known polluters? We cannot and should not rely on government for change as they have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot be trusted even with the simplest concerns for the greater good of the community.
This is not a time to be divided on issues but truly listen to each other. I have given many conversation starters here ... Instead of assuming you cannot talk to people just because they have a different point of view why not try?
I am a young person and I am looking for change.
All around me, I am seeing poor stewardship of the earth; wasteful energy use, reliance on fossil fuels and short-term fixes to ease the effects of devastating extreme weather events.
I am also aware of the science- particularly the fact that until about 200 years ago, our atmosphere contained 275 parts per million of carbon dioxide. This number is now 390 parts per million and is rising by about 2 parts per million every year.
You have already put me in the ‘guilt’ box, but I encourage you to take the time to listen to the people attending the 5,200 events in 181 countries that you disparage above: http://www.350.org/
We are looking for change.
The conversation about this change is very important, however your article strikes me as closing doors, encouraging fear and insecurity and relying on old rhetoric.
I guess I won’t be looking to you to take forward the conversation that needs to happen.
Most informed people would agree with you, despite saying little in public because of hostile and aggressive behavior from activist.The future beneficits of such huge transfers is poorly and vaguely calculated. While such transfers may not adversely affect me as a senior, it will affect my children and 7 grand-children. When financial transfers become larger, corruption grows and the beneficits deminish, these activist will be held to account and it may be bloody. They cannot continue to change the channel when they are wrong.
Page 1 of 2 : 1 2 >