From: Tom Athanasiou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: February 20, 2008 5:50:24 PM PST
To: Gene Coyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: After Bali; Climate Code Red; Towards a Defensible Climate
Realism
After Bali; Climate Code Red; Towards a Defensible Climate Realism
In this update we feature three "stories." The first reflects on the
UNFCCC process "After Bali." The second is a pointer to the stunning
"Climate Code Red" report from Australia. The third is an analysis
of US climate politics called "Towards a Defensible Climate
Realism." Scroll through the rest of this for a quick introduction
and the links to the featured articles, as well as a few key links
to other sites. For more, go to our homepage at www.ecoquity.org
Also, if you haven't yet read about our "Greenhouse Development
Rights" framework - we'll be talking about it below - see the
project homepage here.
After Bali
Impressions of Bali and what it accomplished, or failed to
accomplish, are all over the map. And in interesting ways. One easy
path into the post-Bali debate is via an article that EcoEquity's
Director Tom Athanasiou wrote on the Gristmill blog. It's called
Where do we go from here?, which is, after all, the key question,
well expressed in the old quip about the optimist, who thinks that
this is the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist, who
fears that this may well be the case. Look in particular for the
figure called the "subtraction slide," and consider what it means
for the negotiations...
Bali was quite a milestone for the Greenhouse Development Rights
project. Not only does the GDRs book - The Right to Development in
a Climate Constrained World - look great, but our side event (the
slides are here; the UN's archived video is listed at 10:30 AM on
this page) went very well indeed. And GDRs was also presented or
discussed in six other side events, which may be some sort of
record. It's certainly a sign that, against the painful background
of interminable "negotiations as usual," there's substantial
interest in facing the real challenge - a principle-based burden
sharing system designed to be fair, and thus viable, even under the
stress of an emergency transition.
Lots of other people have written about the Bali meeting and its
implications, and many of them are quite friendly to the GDRs
approach. Check out this US-focused debrief by an anonymous
Washington insider. Or for a few interesting perspectives from
India, see "The road from Bali", an excellent piece in theBusiness
Standard (a major Indian business magazine) by veteran diplomat
Nitin Desai, which explains the GDRs approach with admirable
simplicity. Or"Business Rules," a far more "radical" analysis
(though published in Frontline, a national news magazine) by
grassroots activist C.E. Karunakaran, that embeds the GDRs analysis
in prose that's far less restrained than Desai's.
Climate Code Red: The case for a sustainability emergency
The pressure to soft-pedal is very, very high. We feel it every day.
After all, it's not easy to take proper stock of the science while
at the same time giving "the politics of the possible" its' just and
proper due. But of one thing we are certain - throwing the science
overboard isn't going to do us any good. Which brings us to Climate
Code Red, a fine and even astonishing report just published by David
Spratt and Phillip Sutton, friends of ours in Australia (see
theCarbon Equity site in particular).
Sprat and Sutton claim that "politics as usual" must be cast aside,
and quickly. It's a bold claim, and it cannot be proven. But if
you're a "realist," and wish to avoid any temptations to "face the
facts with brutal honesty," then you should not read this report.
Because even if you're certain that there's no viable alternative to
politics as usual, this report will bring you doubt. And it won't be
doubt that you can set easily aside.
As for ourselves, we can't say that James Hansen, upon whose recent
work Climate Code Red lingers, is certainly right. But we can find
no flaw in his recent argument that we've already passed the
"tipping point," and we agree that the "reticence" of well-
socialized scientists, and of the IPCC itself, has become part of
the problem. The real value of this paper, though, is that Hansen is
not its lone guiding figure. True, he rules in the beginning, but
it's Churchill that looms over the ending, and it's ultimately the
latter man's blunt, pugnacious presence that seals the deal. Which
isn't to say that "code red" is an artifact from the past. Spratt
and Sutton aren't fighting the last war, but preparing for the next.
As must we all.
Towards a Defensible Climate Realism
Forgive us if we dwell a while on our own United States, but there's
change coming to Washington. The question is if it will be change
enough, and when it will arrive. And right now, well let's just say
that reasonable men and women can differ about the demands of
climate realism, and its relationship to the logic of Beltway
politics. As opposed to, say, the science. Or the demands of
justice. Which is why we wrote Towards a Defensible Climate Realism,
which waspublished by Foreign Policy in Focus.
And why Green For All has been emphasizing the links between the
recession and the potential of green redevelopment - see Billy
Parish's great intro here. And why Friends of the Earth US has
launched a campaign to "fix or ditch" the Lieberman-Warner bill. And
why a coalition of American climate and development groups has
launched a Climate Equity Campaign to push the issue of climate
change, and specifically the need for adaptation and clean energy
funding for developing countries, as an issue in this year's
presidential election.
In all this we wish to emphasize two related points. The first is
that we must absolutely hold out for climate legislation that
auctions 100% of all emissions permits. The second is that even the
best of the climate bills now wending their way through the U.S.
Congress promise only to return American emissions to 1990 levels by
2020, and that this is far, far less than the 25% to 40% reductions
below 1990 levels that were the center of the Bali debate. Which is
notable because the latter figure hails from the IPCC and has at
least a comprehensible relationship to the kinds of emissions
reductions that are going to be necessary soon.
To donate
EcoEquity is no longer completely lacking in foundation support.
But it doesn't have much, and, frankly, we're amazed at how far
we've gotten with very, very little money. If you see the logic of
our project, and would like to donate, just go to
www.earthisland.org/ecoEquity/donate.html
. We'll take $10, or $100, or $100,000. It would be used well.
