Solutions Rift

There is a widening divide between what is happening in the United Nations-sponsored talks and what most people believe we need in the new international treaty if we wish to effectively address global warming. After absorbing the agitated atmosphere inside KlimaForum and the perspectives of the activists there, it's becoming increasingly apparent to me that the deal-drafters across town are not only ignoring the science of climate change, but also discussing climate "solutions" that might actually add to inequality and tragedy associated with climate instability.

Last night environmentalist and 350.org founder Bill McKibben made it very clear that in order to ensure the survival of civilization, we must limit carbon in the atmosphere to 350 parts-per-million. There is no negotiating with this figure, because, as he said, physics and nature do not negotiate. The science has shown this is the upper limit for survival, so this is the number that must be written into the text of any serious document. At present, politicians are considering limiting carbon to 450 ppm, which simply will not work for us. And, according to McKibben, if a text were created today given the current emissions reduction pledges on the table, by 2100 our atmosphere would stabilize at around 770 parts-per-million, more than twice the livable limit. If we are to create an agreement that seeks to ensure human survival, must we not base it on the science that will ensure human survival? To do anything else seems to defeat the purpose of the summit in the first place.

Nigerian activist Nimmo Bassey and various indigenous peoples talked today about the possible inclusion of REDD, CDM and other financing schemes in the treaty and what would these would mean for their communities. REDD stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, and CDM is the Clean Development Mechanisim, a way for rich countries to offset their harmful emissions by financing projects in developing nations. Both of these projects look great on paper, seemingly ambitious methods for tackling climate change in the regions most vulnerable to and least able to cope with the changing climate. CDM was part of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and both CDM and REDD are being debated in the COP15 plenary as I write.

The activists speaking this afternoon painted a dark picture of these programs, claiming they are merely ways for corporations to profit under the guise of doing good. They claim these projects continue "business as usual," exactly what we need to avoid. To effect real change, they argue, we must think beyond the existing frameworks of capitalism and globalization. We can no longer ground the revolutionary thinking we need in the paradigms that got us into this mess in the first place. In other words, market-based solutions are the last thing we need.

At KlimaForum, Naomi Klein, noted author, journalist, and activist, urged everyone to join the Reclaim Power march that will be held tomorrow. This will be a demonstration surrounding the Bella Center to raise awareness for the people's demands. One group may even attempt to break into the center and turn it into a People's Assembly, though I am doubtful this will succeed. The police are cracking down at every turn. Last night, demonstrators were tear-gassed in the streets.

Hopefully the dawn brings a peaceful, productive protest that will show the decision-makers how much the people really care.

-Andrew Dunn