A Plea to Paul Kingsnorth: Don’t withdraw; re-draw. Join us in Rio.
by nathan thanki
One busy day in March I received an email from a biology, conservation and ecology professor at COA. Attached to the message was a link to an article by Paul Kingsnorth from the February edition of Orion Magazine, entitled “Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist.” I opened the link to have no more than a glance, but instead spent the next hour and a half reading, re-reading and reacting to the piece. I badly wanted to do something more—to engage with the issues and that professor—but it was finals week, so I bit my tongue. Now it’s May and we’re into the final mile of the road to Rio, where perhaps the largest gathering of its kind awaits in the form of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development and the parallel, alternative, space of the People’s Summit. And I no longer felt able to ignore the elephant in the room, the storm cloud one sees gathering in articles like Kingsnorth’s: disillusionment to the point of despair. Defeatism.
Although put forth as a sort of misunderstood eureka moment, Kingsnorth’s declaration of withdrawal—from the human world, from environmentalism, from politics, from the struggle—is not something new. Ever seen “Into the Wild”? In a very confusing and confused piece in Orion and in a lengthy email exchange published on Grist, Kingsnorth lets rip: the natural world has been irreversibly tanked by our rapacious species; the wild things have all been killed, captured and sold; the deep, dark, non-human night has been sullied with our fire and neon; “environmentalism,” which used to be about saving polar bears, is now obsessed with carbon reductions and heavy green industry. While I found myself sympathising, and agree broadly with the analysis of many anti-civilization thinkers—sharing their frustrations with the mainstream environmental movement, with the advance of greenwashed capitalism, with industrial civilization, even with our species itself—none of those sympathies or shared sentiments could assuage the sheer disappointment I felt upon opening that email and reading that article.
Given that he has withdrawn from that world, I’m not expecting to see Paul in Rio Centro, arguing over whether or not the UNEP should be a specialized agency or not. That’s fair enough, I suppose; policy is dry and frustrating and he was never interested in it anyway. But what disappoints me is that I also don’t expect to see him in Flamengo Park at the People’s Assembly, talking with peasant farmers and indigenous groups about how to best resist the commodification of nature.
One of the biggest expectations of Rio, from everyone, is around the issue of the so-called green economy. Basically, the capitalist proponents of a green economy expect that the UN will institutionalise private, corporate control over natural resources in order to protect them (presumably from poor people that depend on them). The anti-capitalists, marginalised people, and advocates of hand-in-hand environmental and social justice (which Kingsnorth dismisses as bizarre) expect the same. They’re mobilizing to try and fight such an outcome, and doing so regardless of how much angst and despair white middle class British ramblers feel.
Are such movements and organisations pushing the “environmentalism” that Kingsnorth now rejects? Are they environmentalists “in order to promote something called ‘sustainability,’” which Kingsnorth understands as “sustain[ing] human civilization at the comfort level that the world’s rich people—us—feel is their right, without destroying the “natural capital” or the “resource base” that is needed to do so”? Are they washed up Trotskyites, or hyper-capitalists, or what? No, but in fact it doesn’t matter, for they—you, me, he, she, we–are all tarred with the same brush: human. For all his talk of humanity being natural, of us being the environment, Paul does hate us some. That confused tension screams off the page. It’s hard to respond to. Like the purposefully useless sense of despair created by such an attitude, the tension is debilitating. Non-answers abound: eco-socialism is blasted for alienating “95%” of the population (whereas withdrawal alienates 100%), politics is blasted for being the machine through which humans destroy nature, not used as a tool through which to harmonise people and people, people and nature.
As I said, I truly empathise with his confusion. It is hard to discern genuine efforts to protect people and planet from genuine efforts to subvert the justice struggle. It is hard to enjoy having an ‘anthropocentric’ worldview, knowing our species destructive capabilities, just as it’s hard to hold an ‘ecocentric’ worldview if you are human. However, being concerned with human equality and human rights and human justice doesn’t mean we don’t value nature, don’t want to protect it just because it is there (look at how Bolivia is gaining support for their ‘rights of Mother Earth’ campaign). It doesn’t mean that sustainability is about preserving industrial civilization in its current form. Perhaps that is the UN definition, but it’s not mine, nor most of the environmental movement. Going to Rio—walking into the lion’s den that is the institutional approach—is terrifying and confusing. Watching 194 countries haggle over words is always exhausting. After all, they’re just words, does it really matter which ones and what order? Does it really matter that we are there given that all governments, not just Western ones, play the nation-state power game, ignoring the long term effects on people and nature?
Of course it does.
I look to Rio with little but dread and fear. Positive official outcomes? Hah. We all expect the worst, and we all expect a struggle. It is the way of environmental politics. We all afford ourselves moments of despair, when we give up ‘hope’ (however it is defined) and accept the futility. But then we start again, much as Albert Camus described Sisyphus rolling and re-rolling his rock up a hill. This world is a political world, like it or not, and it is the abuse and appropriation of politics that drives the destruction that causes such suffering. If we love humanity and if we love the rest of nature, our millions of species strong family, then we must engage politics as a priority, in order to defend ourselves and our home.
So to Paul: this is not a dismissal or platitude, but a genuine outstretched hand. Come to Rio, even if just in spirit. Challenge the process, contest the space, take back power from corporate control, from corruption, from anti-naturalists. Don’t abandon it, don’t abandon us. If you see a picture of the world that is repulsive, that is rife with hollow words and hate-filled hearts, don’t withdraw! Re-draw! And do it with elegance and creativity.
Over-rolled by Giants
~ Jane Nurse
The first week of the Intersessionals in Bonn has seen a ferocious fight over the agenda of the ADP and an even more hotheaded haggling over the chair and vice-chair positions of the ADP. India on behalf of the Asia-Pacific group has laid claim to the chair long after the deadline for nominee submissions and after WEOG as well as GruLAC submitted their candidates.
In this battle for power over shaping the process that will lead to another legal instrument by 2015, China and India have assumed the role of advocates for upholding the interest of developing countries. However, in reality we should not be fooled to believe that the big players comprised of developed and developing countries alike represent anything else but their own interests at the expense of the most vulnerable ones.
GruLAC banked on the support of the EU in attaining the chair of the ADP. Now it looks though as if the EU’s feeble support is waning in favor of countries that are perceived as more politically and strategically powerful, not only in the climate change negotiations but also in other UN realms as for instance the UN Security Council. What is happening is not the pressure of just requests taking hold but of the big players striking deals among themselves at the expense of the small developing countries.
China and India – the hope of the developing countries – seem to be treating their small and vulnerable developing country compatriots from the SIDS and LDCs with the same abrasive condescendence as the developed world would. While China wages a strategic battle against the adoption of the ADP agenda, India takes on the campaign on winning the chair of the ADP. Meanwhile, the EU flexes its financial muscle to beat everyone into submission on these ADP issues by threatening withdrawal of financial support. It is clear that this move, while not explicitly aimed at GruLAC, will affect most notably those countries with the smallest financial capacity. The current ADP struggle serves as another reminder that alliances are fickle bonds only alive as long as mutual interests are being served. In Durban the Alliance of small Island States (AOSIS) was useful to the EU but Bonn is no longer Durban. Thus while the developing world fractures over questions of regional representation it is the developed world that benefits. This once more cements the status quo of the wealthy and powerful countries triumphing in pitting developing countries against each other in the haggling over influence and power.
One might also wonder whether we should be fighting over which country chairs the ADP or actually fight for getting the best candidate possible. Ultimately the chair should not serve any particular country or region but facilitate the work in the most equitable, efficient, and transparent way possible. Yet nobody seems to care whether we are selecting the best-suited individual, who will mediate between the interest of developed and developing countries alike and ultimately serve the interest of all people in the world. We have the science and potentially even the economics to deal with the issues ahead, but the political will to use these tools is caught up in the process of politicking.
Statement on behalf of 60% of the world’s population in the Durban Platform
More analysis to come….this was delivered by Venezuela
Submission on the Ad-Hoc Working Group on the Durban Plataform (AWG-DP)
Bonn, 22nd of May
Thank you for giving me the floor.
The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has the honor to make a statement on behalf of Argentina, Algeria, Bahrain, Bolivia, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Ecuador, El Salvador, Egypt, India, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Palestine, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
The developing countries associated with this statement account for over 4 billion people on our planet or roughly 60% of the global population, with high incidence of vulnerability to climate change. We have a high stake not only in the ongoing negotiations but also in the important process that we launched at Durban as part of a balanced package.
We assure you of our keenness to expeditiously move forward with the substantive work of the AWG-DP. We wish to assure all our partners that we will spare no effort in reaching out to them and any other partner in finding a solution.
However, AWG-DP agenda is not a procedural discussion but one of substance and scope, both of which will have deep implication on our work. The agenda we adopt here will guide us in this process at least until the end of this year. We are confident that a frank discussion at this stage would enhance our collective understanding on the way forward. We would reiterate our openness to receive and discuss all proposals made by parties on the agenda in a spirit of constructively moving forward. At the same time, we hope that other parties would also take on board our ideas and concerns and that such issues would also receive the consideration they deserve.
We are constructively engaged in this important exercise of agreeing on an agenda that all parties feel ownership of, thereby ensuring the context, quality and momentum for our work. The discussion we had on Saturday was a useful one and it enriched our
understanding of the views held by parties in this debate.
It would be important to give due time and space to open-ended consultations, including in an informal setting. We would strongly encourage that all future consultations on this be held in an open-ended, transparent and inclusive manner rather than by invitation.
We express our willingness to substantively discuss the post 2020 mitigation framework going forward. At same time, we have no doubt that mitigation actions need to be enhanced during 2012-2020. However, at this stage, we foresee that a separate agenda item on enhancing mitigation ambition in the AWG-DP would render meaningless the ongoing discussions of both the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA. In addition, it would delay actions and decisions in those forums. We stress that the context for ambition is provided by the Kyoto Protocol where we are discussing the 2nd commitment period. In addition, for those parties who are not party to the Kyoto Protocol or would not abide by that treaty, also have a responsibility to ensure comparability of their targets and actions under the AWG-LCA. The AWG-LCA is a depository of several actions, not just mitigation actions. Disaggregating the discussion entirely from KP and LCA context would jeopardize the fundamental equity principle of differentiation between Annex-I and non-Annex-I countries under the Convention, aside from weakening the legally binding nature of commitments and converting it to a voluntary scheme of actions
for developed parties. It will impose an inequitable burden on developing countries in meeting the ambition gap.
With a view to ensure that mitigation ambition under the DP is closely linked to work of parties under the two other groups- namely LCA and KP, we would like to propose the inclusion of the following footnote in the agenda:
The implementation of Decision 1/CP.17 should be examined on the basis of its compliance with International Law, in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda and, in particular, with the exception on non-performance related to the full respect and compliance with the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol, for the Parties that are Parties of those instruments.
Madam,
We note that the decision 1.CP/17 establishes the Durban Platform for ‘Enhanced Action’, and is not restricted to ‘Mitigation Action’ alone. We have no doubt that on the basis of science, urgent mitigation ambition is needed. However, mitigation alone will
not sufficient. Our collective ambition on other Bali Pillars namely Adaptation, Finance and Technology is also equally, if not more important to this process.
Let me conclude by saying that we fully support an inclusive agenda that captures, in a non-selective manner, all the elements of decision 1.CP/17 and so that it may provide an acceptable basis to start work immediately. The agenda needs to capture the mutual
assurances of all parties exchanged at Durban. It will be more positive if we keep it as comprehensive and broad based as possible and elaborate it in the light of inputs received from LCA and KP. In the meantime we should begin a discussion on developing our understanding on the scope of work under the Durban Platform.
*****
Australia Dropping the Second Commitment Period?
~by Joe Perullo
In a contact group for the Kyoto Protocol, Australia announced that it has not yet taken a decision on taking on the second commitment period (CP2). This would be the third country to not adopt the second commitment period, after Japan and Russia. note: The US never ratified the KP and Canada dropped out of it completely. Staying in the KP but not adopting the second commitment period means that these parties can participate in the KP negotiations but have no obligation to its mandate of emission reductions. Australia said that whether or not it joins CP2, it will participate in KP discussion constructively. Constructive for who?
Australia said it didn’t know where it put its target: in the KP or the Convention (LCA), as if it was a choice. This is particularly dangerous since developed countries may win in the LCA discussions, deleting much of its commitments to equity.
Australia defended itself, mentioning its faith in market based mechanisms. It claimed that it will soon have a price on carbon, which was a hard fought domestic reform passed in legislation. “We will soon transition to a cap and trade scheme. It will decouple our prosperity from pollution. Cap and trade will deliver us to make our targets—a 23 percent decline in emissions.” This reduction in emissions is very unlikely with simply market mechanisms.
Talks on Trade and Tech Transfer lead to Distrust in Process
~by Joe Perullo
The Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) opened their meeting this morning on the issue of trade.
The big fight was whether or not to continue discussions of trade in the LCA. The LCA is wrapping up its last year, tasked with developing a new legal outcome of some kind. The outcome will have to address the five items agreed as major issues in Bali: Mitigation, Adaptation, Technology Transfer, Finance, and the Shared Vision (the articulation of the underpinning goals of all decisions for the UNFCCC).
The bigger fight yet is still about equity. Developing countries want to mitigate, as the developed countries are demanding, but can only do so with the help of finance, adaptation, and technology transfer—much of which is provided through trade. Trade, specifically unilateral trade, is an implementation tool to finally get aid moving to the global south. As such, developed countries have been going out of their way to keep it out of the Convention.
One of the first speakers, China, saw what was coming and suggested to continue talking about trade instead of ignoring the issue.
Venezuela, having facilitated issue in Durban, referred to a decision made that there were two parts: First, the establishment of a forum to discuss implementation, and second, the consolidation of all discussions under convention.
Developing countries quickly came to consensus that a spin off group on the item should be established to talk about incompleted work. They also pointed out that a mandate from the Bali Action Plan (BAP), the origin of the five issues above, included a mandate in 1b6 to continue and complete the work.
Developed countries, including the EU, Switzerland, the US, and Japan, supported by Mexico and Singapore, responded by urging parties to “move forward” by dropping this issue for the sake of saved negotiating time. They are trying to jump ship from their commitments in the LCA. Partly with the use of the five building blocks, the LCA differentiates developed and developing countries. If developed countries can undermine the LCA, they will be able to put themselves on par with developing countries in what they would like to see as the “new LCA,” the Ad Hoc Working Group for the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP). In other words, equity is squandered and developed countries can be less ambitious.
The most common defense used by developed countries was the fact that other bodies are already in place to take care of trade, notably… (ready for it?)… the WTO.
The US exercised its skill in using the words of developing countries against them: “We agree with what has been said by others. Venezuela noted that a forum decided in Durban would consider all response measures. Yesterday, China noted on the importance of efficiency. Parties are already making measures on trade. We don’t see the need to open a spin off group. There is no prospect to agreeing on it. We have the WTO.”
Cuba rebutted saying that “in real life, nothing is coming from WTO to help climate measures. This is a climate related issue.”
The Chair shifted discussions to Technology Transfer itself, which underwent a similar battle: While developed countries claim that progress has indeed been made with the establishments of the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN), the Philippines turned it around by pointing out that although these mechanisms are established they are not yet operationalized. The Philippines continued on a strong speech, outlining the essential nature of the five BAP building blocks, and the clearness of the BAP agreement itself.
The Philippines shed light on how these discussions have shifted from committing to the LCA to sweeping it under the rug. She exposed a lot of the transparency issues in the process. Referring to the exclusive backroom decisions made in Copenhagen, Cancun, and Durban, she pointed out how an elite group of negotiators have been put on a certain level, and how the LCA chair (then Daniel Reifsnyder) has allowed that. “I’m only at sea level.” She then continued to criticize the role of the chair, bringing up how parties were not allowed to speak out about the Durban decision because of how the LCA chair took his own responsibility by passing the decision to the next COP. Under tech transfer, there were items bracketed under chair’s responsibility that were crucial to developing countries. “All of our options for finance,” said the Philippines, “were dropped off table in Cancun without us knowing what happened. You cannot just drop my options of the table. I will not accept someone to do so without not letting me know about it.”
The Philippines finished with noting the ambiguity of the ADP. It’s launch and period of when to plan its work is still under negotiation.
The Convention cannot be just swepped under the table. Parties agreed to finish its work. Developing countries claim that trying to do so would be stalling process, when in actuality ignoring these issues will only lead to further negotiation and lack of real action.
