Pressure on rich countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions could mean government-branded sacks of food aid could take a back seat to things like more efficient wood-burning cooking stoves for rural Mexicans.

Of course that’s not really true. Green aid will more likely take the form of carbon offsets.  Developed nations will be able to ‘write off’ the high levels of CO2 they produce by providing aid for green development initiatives overseas.   Many western governments (though not Canada) view this as a win-win situation: They can meet both their international aid and environmental commitments in one fell swoop, without making any actual cuts to their carbon emission.  According to Anthony Cary, Britain’s high commissioner to Canada:

“That’s a sensible way to go because economics suggest that you should drive investment to where you can get the biggest gains in terms of the atmosphere, and that’s often going to be in developing countries.”

Developing countries are exempt from setting concrete target emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. The argument follows that developed nations are carbon emitters, where as developing nations aren’t, and forcing target emissions could potentially curb their development goals.  “Green aid” provides the solution, tying rich and poor nations to a global framework for reducing CO2 emissions.

Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM’s) are the manifestation of green aid at work.  CDM’s allow developed nations to invest in projects in developing nations that reduce emissions without making costly cuts to their own CO2 output.  They are traded online, at the CDM Bazaar. Under this framework, I continue to live in a smoggy mess, while the aforementioned Mexican enjoys a high efficiency wood stove he didn’t ask for and maybe doesn’t want.  And anyway, as the BBC reports, between 20% and 60% of CDM projects do not save any additional CO2.

Perhaps Mr. Cary is right about “driving investment to where you can get the biggest gains,” but I wonder if there’s more at stake than economic gains. The earth doesn’t hedge it’s bets the same way the market does, and at the end of the day one ton of carbon is still one ton of carbon. Whether it come from the United States or Uruguay makes little difference.

Amidst the bureaucracy of negotiations, Care International, along seven NGO heavyweights released a report on the impact climate change will have on human migration.  The study, entitled “Give me Shelter,” clearly states:

• The negative impacts of climate change are already causing migration and displacement. The exact number of people that will be on the move by mid-century is uncertain. However, the scope and scale could vastly exceed anything that has occurred before. The International Organisation of Migration (IOM) estimates that there may be 200 million environmentally-induced migrants by 2050.

• People in the least developed countries and island states will be affected first and worst. The consequences for the global economy and poverty reduction efforts could be devastating. There may also be substantial implications for political stability.

And here we present a new class of politically oppressed: The Climate Refugee.

Language contained in the texts of international treaties is a critical negotiating point, often hotly contested.  And with good reason.  Using a term like “climate refugee,” has serious political implications, recalling 1951 U.N. convention on refugees.  Suffice to say, the United States took issue with the term immediately, which will be removed from the text prior to the December round of negotiations.

Still, it’s inclusion in the Bonn round of negotiations is indicative on the growing need to quantify the impacts of climate change on human populations. Critics continue to argue that the notion of climate change as a driver of migration is scientifically opaque. While science can prove that sea levels are rising and temperatures are getting warmer, it’s impossible to ascertain how people will react to those changes.  Will they leave their homes, or simply bunker down and weather the storm?  We won’t know for sure until the worst arrives.