Military build ups under the guise of fighting climate change?   Now that’s innovation!

Congratulations Kingdom of Jordan; you are the official winner of this weeks Green Sheen award.  Huzzah!

By now you’ve probably heard the news – Obama will attend the Copenhagen negotiations.  While his nation is still reluctant to set firm targets (making the intire summit a waste of time,) at least he’s giving it the ol’ college try.  But for today’s post, I thought we might shift our attention away from the big wigs (China, India, America,) and towards the little guys.  Their voice won’t resonate with the same power at the climate talks, but their situation is dire and deserves out attention.  It’s been said time and time again that global warming will have a disproportionate impact on the world’s poor.   As we count down to Copenhagen let’s pause and reflect on some of the headlines of the day that exemplify this.

Climate Change to hit Pacific Island Food Security
Forests, Food Crops and Fisheries in the south pacific will all come under threat as sea levels continue to rise and cyclones and droughts intensify as a result of the changing climate.  The region already relies on imported food and fuel – how will it continue to develop under these intensified conditions?

Warming hits roads and pipelines in Canada North
The term “development” usually implies poverty alleviation in a tropical climate.  But some of Canada’s poorest communities are located north of the 60th parallel. Melting permafrost is undermining building foundations and threatens roads, pipelines and communications infrastructure.  Five trillion dollars worth of infrastructure is believed at risk.  How will this impact northern communities?

Climate change to hit water-scarce Arab world hard
The middle east has maintained a low profile during the lead up to the Copenhagen summit – perhaps because security concerns still reign supreme in the region.  However a new report outlines how a warming climate is likely to hit the water-starved Arab world harder than many other parts of the globe and threatens to slash agricultural output in the area.   How will civilians adapt to the increased water scarcity?  What will this mean for peace and security in the region.

All three of these stories appeared in the last 24 hours.  I wonder what the headlines might look like in the next 24 years, if we don’t take action now?

You’ve no doubt heard the news; Harper is planning to do absolutely nothing at Copenhagen.   In fact, our illustrious PM will not attend the conference at all!  And really, why bother.  Mr. Harper is an important man.  He is far too busy jet setting around the world on important diplomatic business, like opening donut shops.  Far too busy to make an appearance at what is certainly the most highly publicized international negotiation of the last decade.  Never mind the fact that the vast majority of us Canucks have demanded action on climate change again and again and again.

Perhaps you’ve noticed a change in the tone of my posts this week.  To be frank, I’m irked. (Perhaps irked is an understatement.)  But I’ve rallied from the last post, and I’m ready for action.  And I’m in enlisting your help.  If you’re as fed up with the Conservative government’s position on climate change as I am, here’s an opportunity to do something.

It seems ol’ Stevie boy needs a friendly reminder on just exactly what his job is (that being, to represent you and me!)  What better way to remind him, than an e-card from our federal government, designed specifically to remind someone you know that the fight against climate change “rests in your hands.”   This Magazine has an excellent post up from their environmental series Stop Everything. Read it.  Then send Mr. Harper a friendly reminder on who he is in office to serve (that’s you; the people!)  Send Stephen Harper an e-card at pm@pm.gc.ca, and tell our Prime Minister to get his donut-lovin-butt on the next plane to Copenhagen!

But today I am feeling sad.  I am feeling sad because the two most powerful men in the world are meeting in Beijing to discuss the future of the planet. Our planet.  Together their nations account for fully 40 percent of the mess we find ourselves in.   Historically one was worse than the other, and so there is a lot of name-calling and finger pointing on who should be the first to say “I’m sorry, let me lead on this one.”  There are no leaders in this mess.

It strikes me as unfair that two men that I didn’t elect will decide the fate of our planet.  It strikes me as ridiculous that our own elected leader has failed to position Canada in a leadership position, kowtowing instead to the interests of big oil and industry.   It strikes me as hopeless that the general consensus now is that Copenhagen will be little more than a dog and pony show for the political elite.

I spend my day in a basement, underground, typing these little memo’s and releasing them to the universe with the sincere hope that someone will read them, feel inspired, demand more.  Hopeful that things will change.  But today I am feeling sad.  I am feeling sad because deep down I wonder if it’s reasonable to demand people far away to sacrifice their economic development for a mess I created.  I wonder if it isn’t already too late.  I do not want to be typing these memos when I am 50, but I fear that might be the case.  I am fearful.  This is a sinking ship.  Perhaps the only justice in our failure to reach consensus, to co-operate the way we were all taught too back in kindergarten, is that we will all go down together.

Here is the video:

Before I begin, note that I am quitting coffee this week…

I hate this video. I find it trite and offensive. To me it epitomizes the very problem with the climate change movement. Emotional music set over do-nothing images designed to induce an emotional reaction to a ridiculous narrative. I mean, come on – Police in full riot gear and baring attack dogs stand menacingly, ready to put down the minions of cute, mostly white, rioters, baring hand panted signs that read “My future is at stake?” It’s one cliche after another, and does nothing but trivialize the real experience of people risking their lives to fight for their freedoms every day.

From the press release:

The video itself was inspired by the student protests in Iran in the summer, said Lorraine Tao, a partner in the film’s production company, Zig. “We were all so moved by the images on YouTube and Twitter… It kind sparked the idea, ‘What if kids actually knew what could happen to them and what would they do?”

I think a quote like that more or less speaks for itself.

Do climate refugees really exist?

All in all, it makes for a compelling read, and I recommend you check it out. But what I found most interesting was the presumption that the western world lives in fear of mass migrations from developing nations due to inhospitable climate conditions. The term “climate refugee’ has been repeatedly contested in UN negotiations for the upcoming Copenhagen summit, largely because “refugee” invokes legalese pertaining to the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, in which Article 1 states:

“A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it..”

As such, if “climate refugees” were to in fact exists, they would be entitled to certain rights and protection. Tacoli seems to suggest that fear by western nations of the financial burden of supporting these refugees is bogging down the business of poverty alleviation and development. Instead she proposes rich nations assist with financial support to help developing nations adapt to climate change, thereby reducing the need for migration.

Cash transfers are ok, but money won’t make the crops grow if the rain doesn’t come. It’s true, a term like “climate refugee” could have legal consequences, but if such refugees truly do exist, shouldn’t they be entitled to legal protection? Financial assistance helps, but if the IPCCC predictions prove true, no amount of cash transfer will prevent a devastating impact.

The 17-member body, which produces 80 percent of global emissions, will try and find common ground on the climate issue prior to Copenhagen (where a new UN climate agreement will be hashed out, in case you’re out of the loop).

They key point of contention: setting a base year for emissions. While the G8 has committed to a 50 percent emissions reduction by 2050, the 50 percent of what has yet to be determined. Many developing nations (most notably India) would like to see a base year of 1990 for the new climate agreement. This would require developed nations to make significant emissions reductions, leaving more space for countries like India to continue to expand their carbon emissions without exceeding the overall global reduction.  (India has already stated unequivocally that it will not be party to the climate treaty.)

But Japan is having none of it, and is pushing for a more recent base year.

It’s an interesting debate to be sure.  Certainly we’re all in agreement that carbon must be cut, but at what cost?  As Dinesh Patnaik, a top Indian negotiator put it, “We are not keen on numbers like 50 percent reduction by 2050 by (rich) countries, which will freeze the existing imbalance in the distribution of the carbon space.”

Carbon space is what has allowed the west to prosper.  Is it fair to punish developing nations, just as their economies are gearing up for action. Moreover, is a climate agreement that doesn’t involve India, which in 2007 was responsible for eight percent of global emissions (and growing) worth having at all?