‘Climate capitalism’ won at Cancun – everyone else loses | Patrick Bond

By Patrick Bond, Cancun, Mexico

EXCERPT: “December 12, 2010 – Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal – The December 11 closure of the 16th Conference of the Parties – COP16 global climate summit – in balmy Cancun was portrayed by most participants and mainstream journalists as a victory, a “step forward”. Bragged US State Department lead negotiator Todd Stern, “Ideas that were first of all, skeletal last year, and not approved, are now approved and elaborated.”

“After elite despondency when the Copenhagen Accord was signed December 18, 2009, by five governments behind the scenes, resulting in universal criticism, there is now a modicum of optimism for the next meeting of heads of state and ministers, in a steamy Durban summer a year from now. But this hope relies upon a revival of market-based climate strategies that, in reality, are failing everywhere they have been tried.”

FULL ARTICLE AT LINKS

Excerpts from an interview with ecological economist Herman Daly

From Adbusters – excerpts:

‘Relying on growth in this way might be fine if the global economy existed in a void, but it does not. Rather, the economy is a subsystem of the finite biosphere that supports it. When the economy’s expansion encroaches too much on its surrounding ecosystem, we will begin to sacrifice natural capital (such as fish, minerals and fossil fuels) that is worth more than the manufactured capital (such as roads, factories and appliances) added by the growth. We will then have what I call uneconomic growth, producing “bads” faster than goods – making us poorer, not richer. Once we pass the optimal scale, growth becomes stupid in the short run and impossible to maintain in the long run. Evidence suggests that the US may have already entered the uneconomic growth phase…

‘Simply ask the question: What would the US look like if we had one-half of our current energy consumption? I think there are two ways to kind of get a handle on that. The first is to go back in US history to such a time when we did live off of one-half of the current levels of energy consumption. That would put us somewhere around 1960. And gee, life in 1960 wasn’t bad. There were all sorts of good things – you were a long way from freezing in the dark, and life was quite good, materially good, and so forth.

‘Another way of thinking about it is to take the same year and look for another country with half the energy consumption per capita, like France, and life in France is pretty good. So society could cut energy consumption in half and, if it was done diligently, it wouldn’t be a big deal in terms of how it would affect people’s welfare…

‘Another thing students can build on is that economics does recognize a distinction between market versus public goods. Market goods are rival and excludable. My shirt is rival and excludable because it’s my property and if I wear it, you can’t wear it. Students can raise issues with how the whole set of goods that are non-rival are dealt with. Is the best way to deal with non-rival goods going around and making them more artificially excludable? Maybe they should be free? Where is the benefit from making knowledge artificially scarce? Many non-rival goods such as knowledge can be used sustainably in that we can all use a given piece of information as much as we want without using it up.’

Recent Statements by the Bolivian and Venezuelan Governments

The Concept of Living Well – A Bolivian Standpoint – Article distributed in English by the Bolivian delegation at the UN, April 2010

Excerpts: “We suffer the severe effects of climate change, of the energy, food and financial crises. This is not the product of human beings in general, but of the existing inhuman capitalist system, with its unlimited industrial development. It is brought about by minority groups who control world power, concentrating wealth and power on themselves alone…

“Not working and exploiting our neighbors will possibly allow us to live better, but that is not Living Well. When one is living well, work is happiness. Work is learning to grow up, melting into the fascinating reproduction of life. It is an organic action such as breathing or walking. Within the Living Well framework, work is general, for everyone and everything, from a child to a grandfather. It’s for men, women and even nature itself. Among us, nobody lives to benefit from the work of others. Private accumulation is unknown and unnecessary. Community accumulation always fills the warehouse…

“Within the Living Well framework, what matters the most is neither man nor money; what matters the most is life. But capitalism does not care about life, and the two development models, the capitalist and the socialist, need rapid economic growth, causing a dissipation of energy and an insatiable use of fossil fuels to boost growth…

“In this Global Crisis, all the problems have the same structural base, and can be faced using the same structural changes. The solution for each one is the solution for all. All the new models must begin by accepting there are fundamental limits to the capacity of the Earth to sustain us. Within those limits, societies must work to set new standards of universal economic sufficiency and a Living Well conception that does not depend on the excessive use of the planet’s resources…

“Let us build a Living Well vision and the sovereignty of our communities within the balance between man and nature, where we can rebuild our bonds, respecting everyone’s right to consultation when making our own decisions, where we can freely determine our own aims, our forms of organization, the joint planning of our communities, the designation of our authorities, all based on the knowledge we have of ourselves and with full awareness of the responsibility that this entails.”

Venezuela and climate change: Change the system, not the climate

by the Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to the United States

“Venezuela is both one of the world’s main producers of oil and one of its most ecologically diverse  countries. While a seeming contradiction, over the last decade Venezuela has been striving to protect its natural environment, better use oil resources to promote sustainable development and work within the international framework to ensure that climate change remains a central topic of discussion requiring concerted efforts from the world’s countries…

“However, Venezuela also believes that the increased concentration of greenhouse gases is a consequence of a resource-heavy development model, and not just the cause of climate change. For Venezuela, the cause of the world’s changing climate is closely linked to the current development model that favors the interests of big capital and unchecked growth at the expense of equitable development and ecological balance…

“Of course, Venezuela remains a vital producer of oil, a status that might seem at odds with its commitment to attacking the roots of climate change. But over the last decade, Venezuela has worked to better use oil rationally and employ the revenues from its sales for social programs and sustainable development initiatives.

“In Venezuela, oil is seen as an instrument of peace and integration that enables the achievement of the national strategy of sustainable development, in keeping with a rational exploitation of this non-renewable natural resource…

“Developed countries should fulfill their commitment to share technology and establish appropriate financial mechanisms to make the fight against climate change in developing countries more effective. Venezuela rejects market solutions to address climate change issues.

“At the XV Conference of the Parties (COP 16) to the UNFCCC in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December 2009, Venezuela, along with the countries of ALBA (the Bolivarian Alliance of Our America), avoided legitimizing the summit’s agreement, which was promoted by highly developed countries and not based on what international working groups had been negotiating for over two years…

“At the Cochabamba Summit, more than 30,000 people from 140 countries and 56 governments made their proposals to address the problem of climate change in a participatory manner. During his participation in the conference, President Chávez proposed that the position of the ALBA in Cancun should be aligned with the resulting conclusions of the Cochabamba Summit.”

How the Dems sold us out on climate change

Excerpts from ‘The Great Climate Sellout’, by Ruth Conniff (from The Progressive):

“Given a historic opportunity to do something about the biggest threat to the health and safety of the entire world, Obama and the Democrats ultimately decided to do nothing. Before they dropped their efforts at passing a climate change bill, though, they went through a process that is truly remarkable for its cravenness in attempting to give away the store to the very polluters the legislation was supposed to regulate.

“As they worked on the bill, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham held a series of meetings with lobbyists from the big oil companies, the nuclear industry, truckers, and, of course, the Chamber of Commerce (which ThinkProgress last week revealed is soliciting contributions from foreign corporations for the explicit purpose of influencing the outcome of this year’s midterm elections) in order to offer them special favors and protection from over-regulation…

“No, the effort failed in part because Obama started giving away massive gifts to industry before the Senators had a chance to extract promises of support for the bill. As Lizza puts it, ‘Obama had served the dessert before the children even promised to eat their spinach.’

“Obama issued new nuclear loan guarantees, and delayed implementation of carbon caps, without coordinating with the Senators who wanted to dangle these favors in exchange for industry lobbyists’ backing of their climate change bill. The biggest giveaway was the President’s massive, and spectacularly ill-timed, announcement that he would open up the entire Eastern Seaboard to new offshore drilling…

“So on the one side there were the Democrats–Kerry and Obama–giving industry everything it wanted, and on the other side were the Republicans, also demanding favors for industry, but scared of looking even slightly concerned about the future of the planet.

“If we are going to save ourselves, we are going to have to overcome that enormous democracy gap.” (full article at The Progressive)

George Monbiot on the Biodiversity Crisis

At Monbiot.com: “In less than a month, unless we can rouse sufficient public indignation to avert it, a widespread suspicion that humanity is incapable of looking after this planet will be confirmed. The world’s governments will meet at Nagoya in Japan to discuss the catastrophic decline of life on the planet. The outcome is expected to be as tragic and as stupid as the collapse of last year’s climate talks in Copenhagen.

“We cannot accept this. We cannot stand back and watch while the wonders of this world are sacrificed to crass carelessness and short-termism. So, a few weeks ago, the Guardian launched the Biodiversity 100 campaign to prod governments into action. We asked the public and some of the world’s top ecologists to help us compile a list of 100 specific tasks that will show whether or not governments are serious about protecting biodiversity. Each task would be aimed at a government among the G20 nations, and they would be asked to sign up to it at Nagoya.” (FULL ARTICLE HERE)

Evo Morales: Nature, Forests and Indigenous Peoples Are Not for Sale

Excerpt: ‘Forests and rainforests are the Earth’s largest source of biodiversity. If deforestation continues, thousands of species of animals and plants will be lost forever. More than three quarters of accessible fresh water has its source in forested areas, hence the worsening of water quality when forests deteriorate. Forests provide protection from flooding, erosion and natural disasters. They provide timber and other materials. Forests are a source of natural medicines and many curative substances that have yet to be discovered. Forests are the atmosphere’s lungs. Of the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions occurring throughout the world, 18% are caused by deforestation. (full letter here)

Simon Butler: The limits to energy efficiency

From Green Left Weekly:

‘A recent study into the impact of energy-efficient light bulbs gave fresh weight to this conclusion. A team of five US-based scientists, led by Sandia National Laboratories’ Jeff Tsao, conducted the study. It was published in the August Journal of Physics.

‘The team looked at historical evidence to show that as lighting has become more energy efficient, it has also become cheaper. In turn, the cheaper lighting has led to higher overall energy use…

‘This sparks the energy rebound effect. The lower costs of production spur economic growth to new highs. The higher energy use that results tends to outstrip the original efficiency gains.

‘The 19th century British economist William Jevons is credited with being the first to recognise this trend, often called the “Jevons Paradox”, as a law of capitalist economics.’ (full article)

Heather Rogers: The greening of capitalism? (ISR)

Excerpt: “As these examples, and others in the book, flesh out, the market has a distinct inability to solve environmental crises because it can’t adequately value nature. That doesn’t mean great methods and technologies for balancing out the trauma of the biosphere don’t exist—they do. We don’t see more of the solutions that work, including superefficient architecture and transportation systems, as well as biomimicry and service leasing, because as yet these options aren’t profitable enough. Instead of our greater environmental consciousness transforming the way business is done, what we more often see is the market contorting ecological problems so they fit into some sort of profitable framework. To bring about change we must experience ourselves as political actors and not simply shoppers who are supposed to vote with our wallets.” (full article at International Socialist Review)

Four Principles of Climate Justice (Indigenous Environmental Network)

Document available here:

1. Leave fossil fuels in the ground

2. Demand real and effective solutions / end promotion of false solutions like trading and offsets

3. Industrialized – developed countries take responsibility / burden of adjustment to climate crisis

4. Living in a good way on Mother Earth

Environmental, social contradictions of Bolivian development

Lithium, the gift of Pachamama: “However, the indigenous population of Bolivia’s western areas, who are among the poorest people in the country and who have strong communal traditions, appear to disagree with the policy. The social movements that brought Morales to power have mobilised over recent months around demands for local development, and in defence of water rights. In the mind of many Bolivians, the most important thing is that local communities decide on the uses of resources in their own territory.”

From Time Magazine: ‘Until last week, Juan Pablo Ramos was Morales’ longest-standing highest environmental authority. But Ramos tells TIME that he resigned from his Vice Minister of the Environment post “out of conscience,” leaving an unsigned environmental license for the Isiboro-Sécure highway on his desk on the way out. Ramos says he remains hopeful that the Morales government’s international environmental leadership is more than just talk. But, he says, “we are in a time of great threats. We finally have the entire world discussing how to move forward sustainably, and it’s on all of us to keep the pressure on Morales and all world leaders to make this happen.” ‘