Tomorrow, March 27, people around the world will celebrate Earth Hour, a global event organised by WWF. At the appointed hour on this day, cities worldwide will turn off all non-essential lights to express their concern for the environmental challenges our planet faces.
Malaysia is expected to play its part in this event by switching off the lights on such iconic buildings as the Petronas Twin Towers and Menara KL. Supporters of the event stress that its significance lies in the way it symbolises people’s willingness to combat climate change.
But is that really what Earth Hour will symbolise?
read more…
The European Union is funding some of the most powerful environmental NGOs in Brussels – while in turn, they lobby the EU for more money and influence.
LONDON, 8 MARCH — A new report published today by International Policy Network finds that between 1998 and 2009, the European Commission’s environment unit has handed out over €66 million in core funding to green NGOs.
The report – “Friends of the EU” – analyses one coalition of green NGOs called the “Green 10” and finds that its members receive hundreds of thousands of Euros each year from the EU.
read more…
Julian Morris: The premise of Copenhagen was always dubious. Some non-government organisations have billed it as the last chance to save the planet from anthropogenic global warming. Vested interests – such as those who have made money from the European emissions trading scheme – saw it as an essential vehicle for perpetuating their business models. Both groups want binding restrictions imposed on future carbon emissions. But the economic cost of such restrictions would likely be far larger than the benefits. Given that premise, it would be better if Copenhagen were to end with no agreement.
Of course, it could have been otherwise: the Framework Convention on Climate Change requires parties to seek cost effective ways to address climate change. In principle, actions could be taken to reduce barriers to adaptation, for example. Many of these would cost little and would have significant advantages. But those barriers to adaptation often benefit the elite in poor countries. In Ethiopia for example, restrictions on property ownership and trade reinforce existing power structures. Foreign aid has a similar effect, since elites are able to use it to insulate themselves from democratic accountabilty. Indeed, it is no surprise that the version of adaptation promoted by political leaders in Copenhagen focuses only on what can be done by central government through aid-funded projects.
Given those political realities, the absence of substantive agreement during the first week is probably a good thing. The question is whether the stand-off can hold out till the end, or whether political leaders will feel obliged to agree to do “something”, no matter how counterproductive.
Julian Morris is an economist, author and director of The International Policy Network.
Commenting on today’s walkout by African nations at the Copenhagen COP15 climate meeting, Barun Mitra, director of an Indian NGO attending the Copenhagen negotiations and representative of the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change, stated:
“Today’s walkout at the Copenhagen climate conference is purely a negotiating tactic because there’s so much money at stake. Copenhagen is no longer about climate — it’s about cash and corruption, both for poor and wealthy countries. By accepting restrictions on carbon emissions in exchange for cash, the world’s poorest countries are offering to prevent growth and perpetuate poverty. Ultimately, this could be a tragic repeat of the aid industry in the 1960s and ‘70s, when the leaders of some of the world’s poorest countries stuffed their Swiss bank accounts — all in the name of the poor.”
The offers countries made on emissions reduction prior to Copenhagen appear to be insufficient to prevent a 2-degree global temperature rise. Should industrialised nations or developing countries be expected to raise their offers first?
Julian Morris: Neither rich nor poor countries should “raise their offers”. We do not yet know enough about climate processes to say what level of greenhouse gas concentrations would result in a global mean temperature rise of 2-degrees. Nor do we know whether 2 degrees warming would be “dangerous”.
For mild warming, adaptation is almost certainly the most cost-effective option. It is feasible that humanity could adapt at relatively low cost to a warming of 4 degrees (see e.g. the various reports at www.csccc.info). But for that to be possible, it is essential that existing barriers to adaptation be removed; especially restrictions on trade and weak property rights.
Worryingly, the introduction of restrictions on emissions of greenhouse gases, as well as further transfers to the governments of poor countries (including those done in the name of “adaptation”, or through REDD) would likely inhibit adaptation at the individual level.
