Double Jeopardy: Carbon Offsets and Human Rights Abuses

Whether you’re a climate change denier or doomsayer, an avid recycler or rabid consumer of plastic bottles, there is one very good but little-known reason to oppose carbon offsets: their immediate and dire human costs. Offset opponents have always maintained that using them to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is like trying to lose weight by paying someone else to go on a diet. But I argue that even more critical is that fact that such proxy schemes present human dangers on both sides of the equation.

Briefly, offsets are based on the idea that greenhouse gases mix rapidly throughout Earth’s atmosphere — fewer emitted in one place makes up for greater emissions someplace else. Offsets originated with the Kyoto Protocol. In order to make carbon reductions more palatable, Kyoto negotiators established the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) by which industries in developed nations could cut their emissions by investing in programs in developing nations that reduce, avoid, or sequester CO2 or other greenhouse gases in some other place. As an extra bonus, those programs were also supposed to stimulate sustainable development. Offsets rapidly became a popular alternative for industries unwilling or unable to reduce their own emissions. Experts predict that the CDM will deliver more than half of the European Union’s planned carbon reductions to 2020. In addition, a secondary carbon offset market (known as “the voluntary market”), for individual consumers and businesses not obligated by Kyoto, reached $705 million in 2008. With the likely passage of the U.S. climate change bill, those numbers are expected to skyrocket.

But mounting evidence shows that carbon offset projects often create more problems then they solve for the communities that host them. Moreover, an exclusive focus on greenhouse gas emissions means that other highlytoxic releases are often overlooked. I recently compiled some of these findings and took them a step further by tracking the path of offsets generated by some well-known projects from the site of their production to the industries they benefited. As it turns out, the trail of carbon offsets might be washed in green, but from start to finish, it is lined with human rights violations.

From the Mountains of Uganda to the Mountains of US Appalachia

Mount Elgon, Uganda offers one of the more well-documented examples of an offset project that went awry for a local community. But further research reveals that problematic human rights issues extend far beyond Mount Elgon, all the way to the U.S. Appalachian states.

The case begins in the Netherlands in 1990 when the Dutch Electricity Generating Board vowed to surpass Kyoto Treaty goals partly through offsetting its emissions. In 1994, the Board established a non-profit offshoot known as the Forests Absorbing Carbon Dioxide Emissions (FACE) Foundation. FACE then partnered with the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) to plant 25,000 hectares of trees inside Mount Elgon National Park. In exchange for financing the planting of the trees, FACE received the rights to the carbon sequestered by those trees – estimated at 2.11 tons of CO2 over 100 years. While the trees have thrived (especially in areas where agriculture had been encroaching on them), a number of research reports have found that the people surrounding the tree plantations have had the opposite experience.

A year before the FACE-UWA project began, the Ugandan government declared Mount Elgon a National Park. In so doing, it evicted approximately 6,000 people (some of whom had been living there for 40 years), giving them nine days to vacate their homes. A year later, UWA took over management of the Park, which entailed protecting the biodiversity of the area, managing the carbon plantations and securing the park’s borders. Evicted villagers, who were left homeless and without access to land to graze their cattle or grow subsistence crops, attempted to continue using park land, prompting UWA rangers to respond with violence. For instance, a 2006 World Rainforest Movement report details villagers’ descriptions of UWA rangers committing rape, arson, shootings and other violent acts. According to the report, villagers retaliated by throwing stones, burning trees, and sabotaging rangers’ vehicles.

In addition, villagers complain that the forest project has not lived up to its commitment to sustainable development. Initially, project leaders promised to employ local people to work in the national park and tree nurseries. However, local council officials contend that the project employs very few people and most of the jobs are only available during the planting period. To this day, the UWA continues to prevent local people from using the land, and violence and retaliations continue, despite a 2005 court ruling that an area of the national park should be set aside for villagers to live on and continue farming. To be fair, land disputes on Mount Elgon predated the FACE Foundation’s offset project, and the UWA maintains that the offset forest has nothing to do with its conflict with surrounding villagers. At the same time, the funding generated by the project likely provided additional incentives and justifications to administer evictions and violently patrol the area.

If we follow some of that funding and track the carbon credits generated on Mount Elgon, we find a maze of corporations, subsidiaries, and carbon-emitting ventures (indeed, one of the major criticisms commonly leveled at carbon trading schemes is that they create an opaque web of financial instruments ripe for corruption ). For example, the FACE Foundation is a non-profit organization, but the offset reductions generated by its projects are marketed by a Dutch for-profit partner, known as the Climate Neutral Group (CNG). CNG sells credits to over 500 businesses. It also partners with another for-profit company, Green Seat, which sells offsets (including those created on Mt. Elgon) exclusively to individuals and corporations wishing to balance out emissions from airline travel.

After several major news outlets reported on the violence on Mt. Elgon in 2007, Green Seat posted a notice on its website claiming that neither it nor CNG used offsets from Uganda forestry projects any longer. The FACE Foundation also claimed to have stopped planting trees in the park and to be disengaging from the project. "At this stage we don’t get any carbon credits for this project," Denis Slieker, director of the FACE Foundation, told the LA Times in 2007, "We do not plan to expand anymore in Mount Elgon before these matters are resolved." Yet a recent visit to the FACE Foundation’s website describes the Mount Elgon project as “on going.”

Although after 2007, it is unclear exactly what kinds of carbon-production the Mount Elgon project offset, it is certain that it has enabled the building of at least several coal-fired power plants. First, the FACE Foundation was initially established to offset emissions from a new 600 MW coal-fired power station in the Netherlands. Second, CNG customer Enesco is one of the top three energy companies in the Netherlands. Considered to be a particularly “green” energy company, in 2008, Greenpeace ranked Enesco the “cleanest” power company in the Netherlands. On January 1, 2008, the company proclaimed that its internal business operations were “100% climate-neutral”. Yet, my research revealed that 61.2% of the company’s energy supply comes from natural gas, a fossil fuel, and 19.7% — nearly one-fifth — comes from coal. Importantly, one quarter to one third of all carbon dioxide emissions worldwide come from burning coal. Additionally, coal plants produce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, mercury and arsenic (among other pollutants).

Even if the Ugandan project were able offset the climate harm generated by coal-fired power plants, it would not be able to offset the human costs of coal mining. In fact, the Netherlands closed all of its coal mines in 1974 due to their dangerous conditions. Yet, in 2008 the country imported 3.6 million short tons of coal from the U.S. making it one of the world’s top coal importers. The global demand for coal has expanded a controversial method of coal extraction, known as mountaintop removal, which uses explosives to blast away a mountain peak and expose coal seams. While coal companies claim the practice is safer and more efficient than traditional shaft mining, critics contend that it has already ruined more than 500 mountains while dumping tons of toxic waste into streams and valleys, and that its blasts are driving nearby residents (those who can afford to move) from their homes. Even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that by 2012, mountaintop removal projects in Appalachia will have destroyed or seriously damaged an area larger than Delaware and buried more than 1,000 miles of mountain streams.

Without foliage and natural layers of soil, the land is rendered unable to retain water. As a result, floods carrying highly toxic debris have increased. For instance West Virginia resident Maria Gunnoe’s home sits directly below a 10-story valley fill that contains two toxic ponds of coal mine waste. Before mining began, Gunnoe’s property was not prone to flooding, but since the mine became operational, her property has flooded seven times, covering her land with toxic coal sludge. In 2007, Gunnoe and her colleagues at the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition (OVEC) won a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that repealed some permits for mountaintop removal “valley fills” (the practice of burying streams under mining debris) in southern West Virginia and banned the issuance of new permits. But less than two years later, the Corps defied the federal judge’s orders and granted permits to construct two new valley fills above Gunnoe’s community.

The battle over mountaintop removal continues into the Obama Administration. During his 2008 campaign, President Obama expressed concern about mountaintop removal projects, and in June the EPA signed an interagency plan to regulate it. However, a month earlier, the EPA stated that it would not block 42 of 48 mine projects under review, including some of the most controversial mountaintop mines. Obama has also been a proponent of so-called “clean” coal technology, which captures the carbon released by coal-fired power plants. Yet this technology does not address the immediate dangers of the mining process, itself. Here again, an emphasis on greenhouse gas emissions provides an excuse for ignoring other kinds of environmental hazards. Moreover, the coal industry and its lobbying power remain strong, thanks in part to carbon offsets, which facilitate the production of coal-fired power plants and the demand for coal. In fact, international coal lobbyists are currently working to establish clean coal projects as certified carbon reduction programs.

To summarize, we return to Mount Elgon where the human ramifications of carbon offsetting are clear – the offset forest intensified existing land disputes and accelerated displacement, violence and impoverishment among local villagers. If we then follow some of those offsets to their buyers, we eventually find certain Dutch energy companies whose portfolios include coal-fired power plants. Tracking the coal firing those plants, we come to the Appalachian region of the U.S., where it is extracted at great cost to local communities. In short, this carbon offset trail – from Uganda to Appalachia – is lined with immediate and real threats to human rights to health, safety and well being.

From Eastern Scotland to Eastern Brazil

On the East Coast of Scotland, one of Europe’s largest oil refineries flares excess gas into the sky, sending sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and other particles into the nearby town of Grangemouth. Six thousand miles away in eastern Brazil, the villagers of Sao Jose do Buriti struggle against rapidly diminishing water sources and the disappearance of plants that they have subsisted on for generations.

About ten years ago, a foundry near Sao Jose do Buriti threatened to switch from using charcoal to carbon-intensive coal, due to a dwindling supply of charcoal-producing eucalyptus trees. Enter the World Bank, which gathered funding from various sources and initiated a project to expand the foundry’s eucalyptus forest and generate carbon offsets. British Petroleum (BP), then owners of the Grangemouth refinery, had already invested in the World Bank fund as part of a major effort to “green” their image. BP was also able to continue to operate Grangemouth and still adhere to national carbon emissions standards by counting the Brazilian offsets as emissions reductions.

However, in Sao Jose do Buriti the eucalyptus trees’ enormous roots almost immediately began to soak up vast amounts water, drastically lowering the water table for the entire area. Villagers now had to travel increasingly far to find water, as well as traditional subsistence and medicinal plants. In addition, the tree plantation relied on herbicides and pesticides, which local farmers claim killed crops and poisoned streams. Furthermore, the water shortage destroyed some small businesses that had been in families for generations. Finally, a 2008 report by the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network notes, “Perhaps more seriously, groups allege that Plantar pressured local residents to sign letters of support for the project or forfeit employment at the plantations.” Those who did publicly oppose Plantar claim that they and their family members were either threatened, or coerced into working for the plantation.

Meanwhile, Grangemouth, which is one of Europe’s largest oil refineries, emits sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and small particulate matter into the air. In addition, officials at the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) have cited the refinery as "one confirmed source" of an oil slick covering several square miles of the Firth of Forth. Grangemouth residents have long complained about high rates of asthma, as well as the smells and noise coming from the plant. The refinery has a similarly noxious track record on a social level: in late April 2008, the Unite union (Grangemouth’s workers’ union) became embroiled in a dispute with the refinery’s current owner, INEOS, over pension policies. The union accused the company of buying assets and then cutting costs by introducing new working practices, lowering wages, and terminating pension schemes.

But the offset trail does not end in Scotland. As in the previous case, offsets bolster the business of multiple multinationals. For example, in 2005 BP sold Grangemouth to INEOS, the third largest chemicals firm in the world, for GBP 5.1 billion. INEOS has come under fire for its involvement in another carbon offset project with its own set of human rights violations. The same year it acquired Grangemouth, INEOS partnered with Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited (GFL), a company in Gurjarat, India that produces HCFC 22, a refrigerant gas for air conditioning units and refrigerators. GFL wanted to institute a program to capture and recycle HFC 23, a potent greenhouse gas that is a byproduct of producing HCFC 22. INEOS supplied the technology for the program, and both companies received the right to claim the carbon reductions. However, residents of Gujarat claim that the factory has made them sick with joint aches, bone pains, unexplained swellings, throat and nerve problems and temporary paralysis. A recent investigation by the UK’s Daily Mail found “dangerously high levels of fluoride and chloride” in local water and soil (according to their report, fluoride in the water was more than twice the international acceptable limit). But these chemicals do not contribute to global warming. Thus, those monitoring the program considered it successful in so far as it reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2005, the CDM Executive Board approved the Gujarat project and awarded INEOS and GFL an undisclosed number of Certified Emission Reduction units (CERs) over time (INEOS’ website predicts that together with a second, similar project in Korea, the Gujarat project will generate 3 million tons of CERs annually ). Both companies were then free to sell their CERs to industries in danger of falling short of their national emissions caps. In 2006, GFL made news for doubling its sales revenue by selling a record number of carbon credits. The Daily Mail reports that it then used some of the proceeds from those sales to build a Teflon and caustic soda manufacturing facility – both are highly polluting processes. 

This example thus illustrates another way in which carbon credit schemes violate human rights — by creating dangerously perverse incentives for polluters to continue to pollute.  First, carbon offset schemes reward corporations for lowering greenhouse gas emissions while allowing other highly, and deadly, toxic emissions.  Second, GFL’s handsome profits from capturing HFC-23 have inspired other HCFC-22 to follow suit, drastically lowering the cost of its manufacture. Experts predict that soon, a global over-reliance on the chemical, itself a powerful greenhouse gas, will result.

To conclude, this case has ramifications for human rights across the globe. Most directly, offsets allowed the continued pollution of the Grangemouth community, and they introduced new hardships for people in Sao Jose do Buriti. More indirectly, the notion that Grangemouth’s emissions were being neutralized made it an attractive asset that increased the profitability of its various owners, enabling them to invest in other toxic projects. In the case of INEOS, I propose that purchasing Grangemouth made it an even more powerful player in the petrochemicals industry which in turn made it better able to fight off opposition from workers or local communities, or perhaps to lobby for the certification of new kinds of climate change reductions. As well, the acquisition may have bolstered the company’s ability to continue financing its investments in other offset projects such as the GFL-23 program.

At the same time, this case also demonstrates how awareness about carbon offset projects’ trails of tears can connect communities in very tangible ways and catalyze collective action. For instance, in 2003 activists opposed to the Sao Jose do Buriti project attracted the attention of global NGOs, which helped local activists disseminate information about their situation. Eventually, Carbon Trade Watch (a project of the Transnational Institute) initiated a project to connect residents of Sao Jose do Buriti and Grangemouth through the exchange of video diaries. As the resulting documentary film depicts, residents of both communities reacted powerfully to a new awareness of their connected plights and spoke of newfound determination to continue their local struggles. In Scotland, the video diaries inspired one participant first to become an activist with Friends of the Earth and then to run for local office.

Thus, while offsets link communities around the globe in extended chains of emiseration, they also bring new opportunities for transnational alliances and partnerships to challenge market-based solutions to climate change. Fostering such opportunities, though, requires a concerted and well publicized stripping of the green veneer in which offsets are currently washed. Only then can we reveal the ecological and social tarnish hidden beneath and implement alternative solutions.

Conclusions

The need for such efforts is urgent. Certainly, not all offset projects violate human rights as egregiously as some of the cases presented here. But these examples are also the tip of an impending iceberg – carbon markets now trade over US $1 billion annually, and the climate bill currently under debate in the US Congress could send those numbers soaring.

Such prosperity creates ever more perverse incentives to pollute. For instance, in Nigeria, energy companies routinely disregarded a national law prohibiting the flaring of methane gas, a practice that creates acid rain, ruins crops, and causes respiratory and skin diseases for local people. Now, those companies can receive offset dollars for recycling the gas (and complying with the law) thanks to the CDM Executive Board’s recent decision to certify programs that fund the enforcement of existing laws to curb greenhouse gases, if local governments are unable to afford enforcements without offset financing.

This December, world leaders will gather in Copenhagen to revisit and renew elements of the Kyoto Protocol. They will also consider certifying several new carbon offset mechanisms, including biofuels, forest conservation, and clean coal programs, although climate scientists have questioned the value of all of these initiatives in mitigating climate change. Even worse, all of these programs have been known to threaten the health and well being of surrounding communities.

As the Senate debates the Waxman Markey bill, and in the months leading up to Copenhagen, we have a narrow but important window of opportunity to redirect the course of climate change mitigation. Myriad non-market based solutions to climate change exist which promote rather than violate human rights. Given the stakes of the system currently in place, we have no choice but to establish more humane and effective alternatives.

Melissa Checker is an assistant professor of Urban Studies at City University of New York, Queens College.  She is the author of Polluted Promises: Environmental Racism and the Search for Justice in a Southern Town (NYU Press, 2005). In addition to a number of articles on the subject of environmental justice, she also co-edited Local Actions: Cultural Activism, Power and Public Life (Columbia University Press, 2004).

Acknowldegements: I am most grateful to Gregory Button for his editorial comments and encouragement, as well as to Siddartha Dahbi and Steffen Boehm for comments on an earlier and longer version of this article. I am also grateful to Barbara Rose Johnston for helping to shape my ideas early on.

References and endnotes available from the author upon request.

 

Brazil - The Money Tree

In the new economy created by global warming, forests are turning into a valuable commodity. Promising not to cut them down is one of the most popular ways companies would like to offset their emissions. Correspondent Mark Shapiro follows the trail of one of those offset projects deep into Brazil’s Atlantic forest.

 

 

This story is a joint project of FRONTLINE/World and the Center for Investigative Reporting, in association with Mother Jones magazine.

“Brazil: The Money Tree” was produced by Andrés Cediel and co-produced by Daniela Broitman.

Source: www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/carbonwatch/moneytree

The Story of Cap and Trade

The Story of Cap & Trade is a fast-paced, fact-filled look at the leading climate solution being discussed at Copenhagen and on Capitol Hill. Host Annie Leonard introduces the energy traders and Wall Street financiers at the heart of this scheme and reveals the “devils in the details” in current cap and trade proposals: free permits to big polluters, fake offsets and distraction from what’s really required to tackle the climate crisis. If you’ve heard about Cap & Trade, but aren’t sure how it works (or who benefits), this is the film is for you.

Source: www.storyofcapandtrade.org

Translations:

{tab=Mandarin}


{tab=Danish}

Historien om kvotehandelssystemet
Hvorfor man ikke kan løse et problem med de tanker der skabte det
Af Annie Leonard

Jeg er virkelig glad for at verden endelig finder sammen i forsøget på at stoppe klimaforandringerne.

Da jeg hørte at verdens ledere skulle mødes for at tale om løsninger, blev jeg meget lettet.

Gjorde du ikke?

Men så tænkte jeg, vent lige lidt.

Hvad er det præcist, de planlægger at gøre ved problemet?

Så jeg satte mig for at undersøge det.

Og jeg må sige, at ikke alle de løsninger de arbejder på, er hvad jeg ville kalde løsninger.

Faktisk er den førende løsning, kendt som kvotehandelssystemet eller handel med CO2 kvoter, et stort problem.

Jeg ved godt, at det er det sidste, du har lyst til at høre om, men vores planets fremtid er på spil, så vi bliver nødt til at forstå, hvad det her handler om.

Okay, lad os møde dem, der er i centrum for denne såkaldte løsning.

Det er blandt andet folk fra Enron, der designede handel med energi, og finansfolk fra Wall Street, som Goldman Sachs, der fik det amerikanske boligmarked til at smelte ned.

Deres job er at udvikle helt nye markeder.

De fremsætter deres krav og så når alle og enhver vil være med, og markedet bliver en stor boble der braser, tager de afsted med store summer penge.

Det er ikke lang tid siden at deres seneste boble brast, så nu har de fået en ny idé til et marked – handel med CO2-forurening.

De er ved at skabe en boble til en værdi af 3 billioner dollars. Og når denne her springer, vil det ikke bare være slemt for vores aktier, men for hele vores planet.

Så hvordan virker handelskvotesystemet?

Altså, næsten alle seriøse videnskabsfolk er enige om at vi bliver nødt til at reducere CO2 niveauet i atmosfæren til 350 ppm, hvis vi vil undgå en klimakatastrofe.

I USA betyder det, at vi skal reducere vores udledning af CO2 med 80% - måske endda mere – inden 2050. 80%!

Men problemet er, at det meste af vores globale økonomi er baseret på at afbrænde fossile brændstoffer, der udleder CO2: fabrikkerne, der laver alle vores ting, skibene og lastbilerne der bringer dem rundt i verden, vores biler og bygninger og apparater, ja, næsten alting.

Så hvordan kan vi reducere CO2 udslip med 80% uden at skulle til at leve som i Det Lille Hus på Prærien?

Disse kvotehandelsfolk siger at en ny CO2-børs er den bedste måde at gøre det på.
Det første skridt ville være at få verdens regeringer til at blive enige om en årlig grænse på CO2 udslip.

Det er ‘lofts’-delen. Den er super, synes jeg.

Men hvordan vil de sikre at udledning af CO2 forbliver under dette loft?

Verdens regeringer ville have ret til at uddele et bestemt antal tilladelser til at forurene.

Hvert år ville der blive færre og færre tilladelser i og med at vi kommer tættere på målet.

Innovative virksomheder vil bygge grønne alternativer og blive mere effektive.

Når der bliver færre tilladelser vil de også blive mere værd, og derfor vil firmaer, der har kvoter tilovers, naturligvis sælge dem til firmaer, der stadig har brug for dem.

Det er her handel kommer ind i billedet.

Logikken er at så længe vi holder os under grænsen, er det ligegyldigt hvem der forurener og hvem der er innovative.

Vi vil nå det inden deadline for klimaet og undgå en katastrofe.

Og nå, ja, disse herrer tager gebyr for at stå for denne multi-billion dollar CO2 raket, eller jeg mener, marked.

Red planeten, bliv rig, det lyder fint, ik?

Nogle af mine venner, der virkelig bekymrer sig om vores fremtid, støtter handelskvotesystemet.

Mange miljøorganisationer, som jeg respekterer, gør også.

De ved at det ikke er den perfekte løsning, og de kan ikke lide tanken om at vores planets fremtid ligger i hænderne på disse herrer, men de mener det er et vigtigt første skridt og at det er bedre end ingenting.

Det er jeg ikke så sikker på.

Og det er jeg ikke alene om.

A growing movement of scientists, students, farmers, and forward thinking businesspeople are saying “wait a minute!”

En stadig større bevægelse af videnskabsfolk, studerende, landmænd, og progressive forretningsfolk siger ”stop lige et øjeblik!”

Selv de økonomer der opfandt kvotehandel til at håndtere mere simple problemer som forurening med kvælstoffer og svovldioxid, siger faktisk at kvotehandel aldrig vil komme til at virke med klimaforandringerne.

Her er hvorfor jeg mener de har ret.

Når det kommer til hvilken som helst slags finansielle fiduser, som subprimelån eller Bernie Madoff’s pyramidevirksomhed, er der altid problemer.

Og der er mange problemer med de handelskvoteforslag, der er til forhandling.

Det første problem er tilladelser der gives væk gratis, og derfor kalder nogle det ‘Cap & Giveaway’.

Inden for denne ordning vil den forurenende industri få størstedelen af de værdifulde tilladelser gratis. Gratis!

Jo mere de har forurenet, des flere penge får de.

Det er som om vi takker dem for overhovedet at have skabt problemet.

I Europa, hvor de har afprøvet systemet, har værdien af tilladelserne været ekstremt svingende og forbrugernes energipriser er steget, og ved du hvad?

Udledningen af CO2 er faktisk steget!

Den eneste del der virkede var, at forurenerne fik milliarder af dollars i ekstra profit.

Økonomer fra Massachusetts Institute of Technology siger, at der højst sandsynligt vil ske det samme her i USA.
Disse milliarder kommer fra VORES lommer. En rigtig løsning ville være at bruge de penge på at stoppe klimaforandringerne.

I stedet for at give tilladelser til dem der forurener, kunne vi sælge tilladelserne og bruge pengene på at:
- bygge en grøn energi-økonomi.
- eller give pengene til borgerne til at hjælpe med at betale for højere benzinpriser, mens vi laver overgangen til den grønne energi-økonomi.
- eller dele det med dem der lider mest skade af klimaforandringerne. Nogle kalder det, at vi skal betale vores økologiske gæld.

Når vi i de rigeste lande har udledt størstedelen af CO2 i århundreder, og levet en meget behagelig livsstil, har vi så ikke et ansvar for at hjælpe dem der lider mest skade af klimaforandringerne?

Det svarer til at holde en stor fest og ikke invitere naboerne, men alligevel lade dem betale for rengøringen. Det er altså ikke cool.

Vidste du, at i det næste århundrede, kan hele ø-nationer ende under vand på grund af klimaforandringerne, og at FN mener at 9 ud af 10 afrikanske landmænd kan miste deres mulighed for at dyrke jorden?

Ville en rigtig løsning ikke komme disse mennesker til gode i stedet for dem der forurener?

Det andet problem hedder udligning.

Udligningstilladelser skabes når et firma angiveligt fjerner eller reducerer CO2 udslip.

Så får de en tilladelse som kan sælges til en forurener, der vil have tilladelse til at udlede mere CO2. In theory, one activity offsets the other.

I teorien vil én aktivitet udligne den anden.

Faren med udligning er, at det er svært at garantere, at CO2 rent faktisk ikke bliver udledt.

Alligevel er disse tilladelser rigtige penge værd.

Og det skabet et meget farligt incitament til at lave falske udligninger – at snyde.

Snyderi behøver ikke være verdens undergang, men med CO2-tilladelser er det.

Og der er allerede en del snyderi.

Som i Indonesien, hvor Sinar Mas virksomheden har fældet masser af urskov, hvilket har ødelagt meget både økologisk og kulturelt.

Så tog de det øde område de havde skabt og plantede palmeolietræer. Gæt hvad de kan få for det? Nemlig, udligningstilladelser.

Mindre CO2? Nej. Mere CO2? Det kan du tro.

Firmaer kan endda tjene på udligning ved slet ikke at gøre noget som helst.

For eksempel kan en forurenende fabrik hævde, at de havde planlagt at udvide 200% men så ende med en udvidelse på kun 100%.

For denne meningsløse påstand får de udligningstilladelser – tilladelser som de kan sælge til andre så de kan forurene mere.

Det er så dumt!

Listen over fiduser er lang og mange af de værste sker i den såkaldte tredje verden, hvor store firmaer gør hvad de har lyst til, mod dem de vil.
Og med de slappe standarder og den mangelfulde regulering på udligning kan de få tilladelser til næsten alting.

Det første og det andet problem, gratis tilladelser og udligning gør systemet unfair og ineffektivt.

Men det sidste problem, som jeg kalder afledningsmanøvren, gør det direkte farligt.

Der findes rigtige løsninger derude, men handelskvotesystemet med dets smuthuller og løfter om rigdom, har gjort at mange har glemt dem.

Vi er ikke en gang tæt på en global aftale om et CO2 loft, og jep, det er hele pointen med handelskvotesystemet.

Men i stedet for at sigte mod en fair og stærk aftale, sætter vi vognen foran hesten og skynder os at handle med anordninger og udligninger.

Med alle de fup udligningsprojekter, store bonusser til forurenere og når ulighederne indenfor klimaforandringerne ikke adresseres, tror du så den tredje verden vil være med til et globalt loft?

Det tvivler jeg på.

Hvis forslag om et handelskvotesystem stopper os fra faktisk at begrænse CO2 udslippet, er det en farlig afledningsmanøvre.

Vi behøver ikke at lade disse mennesker designe løsningen.

Vi – os og vores regeringer – kan lave lovgivning og gøre det selv.

I mit land har vi allerede klar lovgivning, der bekræfter at kulstof er en forureningskilde som vores miljøagentur har lov til at begrænse.

Så hvad venter vi på? Kom så myndigheder! Sæt et loft på CO2-udslippet!

Desværre vil et forslag til et nyt handelskvotesystem, fremsat i 2009, ødelægge meget af den gode lovgivning og overlade det til markedet at løse problemet.

Hvis forslaget om et handelskvotesystem svækker vores mulighed for at lave god lovgivning, er det en afledningsmanøvre.

Bekymrede borgere fra hele verden skal tage bladet for munden og kræve at vi omformer vores økonomier væk fra fossile brændstoffer.

Men handelskvotesystemet gør at borgere tænker, at det hele nok skal gå, hvis vi bare kører lidt mindre i bil, skifter vores pærer ud og lader forretningsfolkene gøre resten.

Hvis handelskvotesystemet skaber en falsk fornemmelse af fremskridt er det en farlig afledningsmanøvre.

Disse forslag om handelskvotesystemer handler mest om ikke at ændre noget som helst.

Lige nu subsidier USA fossile brændstoffer mere end dobbelt så meget som vedvarende energi.

Hvad? Vi burde slet ikke subsidiere fossile brændstoffer overhovedet!

Disse folk har vist ikke fanget at den nemmeste måde ikke at udlede CO2 på, er at lade den være i jorden.

Kongressmanden, Rick Boucher fra USA, en velkendt ven af kulindustrien, stemte for handelskvotesystemet.

Han sagde det ”styrker sagen for forsyningsvirksomheder til at fortsætte med at bruge kul”

Ingen lov der tilskynder til brug af kul kan stoppe klimaforandringerne. Punktum.

Et solidt loft, god lovgivning, handling fra borgernes side, og gebyr på CO2 til at betale den økologiske gæld og skabe en grøn energi, det er sådan vi kan redde vores fremtid.

Næste gang der er nogen der fortæller dig, at handelskvotesystemet er det bedste vi kan få, så lad være med at tro på dem!

Eller endnu bedre, snak med dem.

De vil sikkert også gerne have en fremtid, der er sikret mod klimaforandringer.

Måske har de bare glemt, at man kun kan gå på kompromis indtil et vis punkt, inden en løsning ikke længere er en løsning.

Jeg ved at vi alle gerne vil undgå at skulle ofre noget, redde planeten og blive rige, mens vi gør det.

Men helt ærligt! Dette er den største krise menneskeheden nogensinde har stået overfor.

Vi kan ikke løse det med den indstilling – med industrien og forretningsfolkenes indstilling – der fik os rodet ind i det her.

Vi har brug for noget nyt.

Det bliver ikke let, men det er på tide vi tænker større.

Det er på tide vi designer en klimaløsning, der virkelig virker.

(Tak Mette Juel Madsen!)

{tab=Spanish}

TOPE Y COMERCIO DE EMISIONESDE CARBONO
La historia de las falsas soluciones climáticas
Por Annie Leonard

• Estoy muy contenta de que finalmente el mundo se encuentre reunido para intentar detener el cambio climático. Cuando escuché que nuestros líderes se estaban reuniendo para hablar de soluciones, di un gran suspiro de alivio. ¿Ustedes no?

• Luego dije, esperen un minuto. ¿Qué exactamente están planeando hacer sobre este problema? Entonces eché un vistazo al asunto. Y tengo que decirles que no todas las soluciones en las que ellos están trabajando son lo que yo llamaría soluciones. De hecho, la solución principal conocida como “TOPE y COMERCIO” [en inglés “cap and trade”] es un problema enorme.

• Yo sé que esto es lo último que ustedes quisieran escuchar, pero el futuro de nuestro planeta está en juego y debemos tomarnos el tiempo para entender qué es lo que está sucediendo.

• Bien, conozcan a las personas que están en el centro de esta llamada “solución”. Entre ellas está la gente de Enron, quienes diseñaron el comercio de energía; también están las financieras de Wall Street como Goldman Sachs, quien nos regaló la crisis de los préstamos hipotecarios.

• Su trabajo es desarrollar nuevos productos para el mercado. Luego, reclaman su parte, y cuando todo el mundo quiere participar, incluso sus abuelas, se retiran con enormes cantidades de dinero, mientras el mercado se convierte en una burbuja gigante y explota.

• Su más reciente burbuja acaba de reventar y se les ocurrió una nueva idea para el mercado: el comercio con la contaminación de Carbono. Ahora están por desarrollar una nueva burbuja de $3 millones de millones de dólares y, cuando esta reviente, no sólo desplomará las carteras de inversiones, ¡podría derrumbarlo todo!

• ¿Y cómo funciona el sistema de “tope y comercio”?

• Bueno, prácticamente todos los científicos serios están de acuerdo en que tenemos que reducir la cantidad de Carbono presente en la atmósfera a 350 ppm si queremos evitar el desastre climático. En Estados Unidos significa reducir las emisiones en un 80% - o quizás aún más – para el 2050. ¡80%!

• Ahora bien, el problema es que la mayor parte de nuestra economía global funciona en base a la quema de combustibles fósiles, que libera Carbono. Las fábricas que hacen todo tipo de cosas, los barcos y camiones que las transportan por el mundo, nuestros carros, los edificios y electrodomésticos, prácticamente todo.

• Entonces, ¿cómo se va a poder reducir el Carbono en un 80% en Estados Unidos sin volver a una vida campestre?

• La gente que impulsa el comercio de emisiones dice que la mejor forma de lograrlo es creando un nuevo mercado de acciones sobre el Carbono.

• El primer paso sería convencer a los gobiernos de todo el mundo que acuerden límites anuales de emisiones de Carbono. Esa es la parte del TOPE . Y creo que esta parte es buena.

• ¿Pero cómo hacer que las emisiones de Carbono se mantengan por debajo de este límite?

• Pues bien, los gobiernos distribuirían una cierta cantidad de permisos de contaminación. Cada año debiera haber menos y menos permisos en tanto perseguimos la meta del tope establecido.

• Empresas innovadoras contribuirían desarrollando alternativas limpias y siendo más eficientes.

• Al tornarse los permisos de emisión más escasos, estos se volverán más valiosos y, naturalmente, las empresas que tengan excedentes de permisos querrán venderlos a las compañías que los necesiten.

• Aquí es donde entra el tema del ” COMERCIO”.

• La lógica es que mientras nos mantengamos por debajo del tope de emisiones, no importa quién contamina ni quién innova. Y, según ellos, estaríamos cumpliendo con nuestra meta climática, evitando la catástrofe.

• Por supuesto, ellos ganan mucho dinero, pues son agentes de bolsa de este multimillonario Desfalco de Carbono, perdón… quise decir “Mercado de Carbono”.

• Salvar el planeta y hacerse millonario al mismo tiempo, ¿a quién no le gusta la idea? Algunos de mis amigos, a quienes realmente les importa nuestro futuro, apoyan el sistema de TOPE Y COMERCIO (cap and trade) . Muchos grupos ambientalistas que respeto, también lo hacen. Saben que no es la solución perfecta y no les agrada la idea de entregar el futuro del planeta a esta gente, pero piensan que es un primer paso importante y que es mejor que nada. Yo no estoy tan segura de esto.

• Y no soy la única. Un movimiento cada vez más grande de científicos, estudiantes, agricultores, campesinos y empresarios progresistas están diciendo: “¡Esperen un minuto!”

• De hecho, incluso los economistas que inventaron el sistema de Tope y Comercio (Cap&Trade) para problemas más simples como la contaminación causada por fertilizantes y dióxido de Azufre, dicen que este mecanismo jamás funcionará para el cambio climático. Están en lo correcto y les diré por qué.

• Cuando se trata de cualquier fraude financiero, como las hipotecas “subprime” o las pirámides de Bernie Madoff, el diablo siempre está en los detalles. Y hay muchos diablos en los detalles de las propuestas del “Tope y Comercio” que están sobre la mesa.

• El diablo # 1 son los “permisos gratuitos”. Por eso en lugar de “Tope y Comercio” se le podría llamar “limitar y regalar”. En este esquema, los contaminadores industriales recibirán la mayor parte de estos valiosos permisos gratis. ¡Gratis!

• Y cuanto más hayan contaminado, más permisos tendrán.

• Es como darles las gracias por haber creado este problema.

• En Europa, donde ya se probó un sistema de “limitar y regalar”, el valor de los permisos de emisiones fluctuó como loco y los costos de la energía se cargaron a los consumidores; y, ¿adivinen qué?…

• ¡Las emisiones de carbono aumentaron! Lo que sí funcionó fue que los contaminadores ganaron miles de millones de dólares. Economistas del Instituto Tecnológico de Massachusetts – MIT- dicen que probablemente lo mismo sucedería en Estados Unidos.

• Y esos miles de millones de dólares saldrán de nuestros bolsillos.

• Una solución real podría ser poner ese dinero a funcionar para detener el cambio climático.

• En lugar de regalar derechos a los contaminadores, podríamos vendérselos y usar el dinero para:
• Construir una economía basada en energías limpias
• Dar a los ciudadanos un estipendio económico para ayudarles a pagar un precio más alto de combustibles mientras hacemos la transición hacia una economía basada en energías limpias
• O podríamos compartirlo con los más afectados por el cambio climático. Algunas personas llamarían a esto: pago por la deuda ecológica.

• Dado que durante siglos los países más ricos han liberado demasiado Carbono y que allí la vida es bastante confortable, ¿acaso no tienen la responsabilidad de ayudar a los más afectados?

• Es como haber tenido una gran fiesta, no invitar a los vecinos y después se los obligara a limpiar. Simplemente no está bien.

• ¿Sabían que en el próximo siglo, debido al cambio climático, naciones enteras podrían terminar bajo el agua y que 9 de cada 10 campesinos africanos ya no podrían cosechar alimentos?

• ¿No se debería beneficiar a esta gente, en lugar de a los contaminadores?

• El diablo #2 se llama “compensación”

• El permiso de “compensar” se crea cuando una empresa supuestamente remueve o reduce la emisión de Carbono. Así la empresa obtiene un permiso de emisión que puede ser vendido a un contaminador que quiere permisos para emitir más carbono. En teoría, una actividad compensa a la otra.

• El peligro de las “compensaciones” es que es muy difícil garantizar que realmente el Carbono está siendo removido en el otro lugar. Pero eso sí, estos permisos si valen dinero real.

• Esto genera un incentivo muy peligroso para crear falsas “compensaciones”, para hacer trampa o estafar.

• Hacer trampa en algunos casos no es el fin del mundo, pero en este caso si lo es. Y ya están haciendo bastantes trampas.

• Por ejemplo, en Indonesia, la empresa Sinar Mas taló bosques de indígenas, provocando una severa destrucción ecológica y cultural. Luego, usó la tierra que ella misma devastó para plantar palma aceitera. ¿Adivinen qué recibieron a cambio? Si! Permisos de “compensación”, es decir para emitir más Carbono.

• ¿Se redujo el carbono? No. El carbono aumentó

• Las empresas incluso pueden ganar derechos de emisión por hacer nada.

• Por ejemplo, una fábrica contaminante puede decir que planeaba expandir sus operaciones un 200% pero redujo su plan para expandirse solo un 100%. Por esta mera declaración, puede recibir derechos de “compensación” de emisiones. ¡Derechos que luego pueden vender a otro para contaminar más! ¡Esto es ridículo!

• La lista de estafas sigue su curso y muchas de las peores ocurren en el Tercer Mundo, donde las grandes empresas hacen lo que quieren. Con estándares y regulaciones laxas para la “compensación de Carbono” pueden obtener permisos prácticamente a partir de cualquier cosa.

• Los demonios #1 y # 2 , “limitar y regalar ” y “compensación”, hacen al sistema injusto y nada efectivo frente al cambio climático. Pero el último demonio, que yo llamo “Distracción”, lo vuelve absolutamente peligroso.

• Veamos. Existen soluciones reales, pero el sistema de “Tope y Comercio” con sus vacíos y promesas de riqueza, ha hecho que mucha gente se olvide de ellas.

• Estamos lejos de llegar a un acuerdo global sobre un límite a las emisiones de Carbono, y este es el punto clave del sistema “Tope y Comercio”. Pero en lugar de elaborar un acuerdo fuerte y justo, estamos poniendo la carreta delante del caballo, alentando planes dentro del mercado, así como derechos de “compensación” de emisiones.

• Con todas estas falsas soluciones, las enormes prebendas a los contaminadores, y el fracaso en resolver las injusticias del cambio climático, ¿creen que el Tercer Mundo va sumarse a un acuerdo para limitar las emisiones globales de carbono? Yo lo dudo. Si la propuesta de “Tope y Comercio” (“Cap & Trade”) está siendo un obstáculo para limitar las emisiones de carbono, entonces es una distracción peligrosa.

• No necesitamos que otra gente diseñe las soluciones. Nuestros gobiernos y nosotros podemos hacer leyes.

• En Estados Unidos, ya tenemos la Ley de Aire Limpio que dice que el Carbono es un contaminante que la EPA (Agencia de Protección Ambiental) debe limitar. ¿Entonces qué estamos esperando? ¡EPA pon límites a ese Carbono!

• Sin embargo, la Ley de Cuotas y Comercio propuesta en el 2009 hizo inefectiva la Ley de Aire Limpio, dejando que el mercado arregle el problema. Si la propuesta de “Tope y Comercio” debilita nuestra habilidad para hacer leyes fuertes, eso es una distracción.

• Ciudadanos preocupados por este asunto alrededor del mundo deben levantar la voz y exigir que rediseñemos nuestras economías sin combustibles fósiles. Pero el mecanismo del mercado de carbono hace que los ciudadanos crean que estará bien sólo con usar menos el automóvil, cambiar las bombillas eléctricas y dejar que esta gente haga el resto. Si el sistema de mercado de carbono crea un falso sentido de progreso, es una distracción peligrosa.

• El objetivo principal del comercio de emisiones es justamente mantener la situación tal y como está.

• Ahora mismo, en Estados Unidos se subsidia dos veces más a los combustibles fósiles que a las energías renovables. ¿Qué? ¡No deberíamos estar subsidiándolos en lo absoluto!

• Esta gente no parece darse cuenta de que la forma más simple de mantener el Carbono fuera de la atmósfera es dejarlo en el subsuelo.

• Un diputado estadounidense, Rick Boucher, amigo de la industria del carbón, que votó a favor del “Tope y Comercio” dijo que esto “refuerza los motivos para que las empresas de servicios continúen usando carbón.”

• Ninguna ley que estimule el uso de carbón puede detener el cambio climático.
Y punto.

• Límites consistentes, leyes fuertes, acción ciudadana, impuestos al Carbono para pagar la deuda ecológica y crear una economía basada en energía limpia son maneras de cómo podemos salvar nuestro futuro.

• La próxima vez que alguien les diga que el sistema de “Tope y Comercio” (“Cap and Trade”) es lo mejor que podemos conseguir, ¡no se lo crean! mejor hablen con esa persona. Probablemente también quiera un futuro seguro, sin cambio climático. Quizás sólo olvidó que uno puede comprometerse hasta cierto punto, hasta que una solución deje de serlo.

• Sé que todos preferirían no tener que sacrificar nada, salvar el planeta y ganar dinero al mismo tiempo. ¡Pero seamos realistas! Esta es la mayor crisis que ha enfrentado la humanidad.

• No podemos resolverla con la misma mentalidad que nos llevó a este desastre. Necesitamos algo nuevo.

• No será fácil, pero es tiempo de soñar a lo grande. Es tiempo de diseñar soluciones climáticas que realmente funcionen.

(Gracias Tania Hernandez e Yvonne Yanez!)

{tab=isiZulu}

Indaba yesixazululo ngesimo sezulu,
Ngu Annie Leonard

Ngiyajabula ukuthi umhlaba usuyahlangana mayelana nokubhekelwa kokushintsha kwesimo sezulu. Ngenkathi ngiqala ukuzwa ukuthi abaholi bethu bayahlangana ukukhuluma ngezixazululo, ngaphefumula kakhulu. Awuzange wena?

Ngase ngithi, awuthi ngime kancane. Ngabe bahlelani ngalenkinga? Ngase ngiyabheka. Futhi kufanele ngikutshele, akuzozonke izixazululo abazenzayo engingazibiza ngezixazululo. Empeleni, isixazululo esihamba phambili, esaziwa njengokuhwebelana ngomsizi, isona esiyinkinga enkulu.

Manje ngiyazi ukuthi lokhu engizokutshela kona into yokugcina ofune ukuyizwa, kodwa ikusasa lomkhathi wethu lisenkingeni enkulu, ngakho-ke kufanele sibe nesikhathi ukuze sazi ukuthi kwenzekani la.

Kulungile, ake sihlangane nalamadoda enhlizweni yalokhu abakubiza ngesixazululo. Bahlanganyele namadoda aqhamuka kwiEnron abaqhamuka nesu lokuhweba ngamandla, futhi abezimali bakuWall Street njengoGoldman Sachs ibona abadala insambatheka yezikweletu zomhlaba.

Umsebenzi wabo ukuqhamuka namasu amasha okuthengisa ezimakethe. Bathatha izingxenye ezinkulu zenzuzo bese kuthi uma wonke umuntu kanye nogogo babo sebefuna ukuba yingxenye, bese bethatha izimali ezinkulu ngenkathi imakethe isikhula ngamandla bese iyafadalala.

Isu labo lokugcina liye lafadalala manje sebenesu elisha lezimakethe – ukuhwebelana ngomsizi ongcolisa umoya emkhathini. Basemkhankaseni wokuqala isu elizodla izigidigidi ezibalelwa kumabhiliyoni amathathu amadola, kodwa uma lilisu lingasaphumeleli, ngeke nje lihambe nokonga kwakho kweminyaka, kodwa lizohamba nakho konke!

Ngakho-ke lwenzeka kanjano loluhwebo?

Empeleni, bonke ocwepheshe bezesayensi bavumelana ngokuthi kufanele sehlise izinga lokungcola emkhathini esibalweni esingu350ppm uma sifuna ukugwema isimo esibi kakhulu sezulu. EMelika, kusho ukwehlisa ukukhipha umsizi ongcolisa umoya emkhathini ngamaphesenti angamashumi ayisishagalombili – mhlawumbe futhi kakhulu kunalokho – ngonyaka ka2050. Amashumi ayisishagalombili!

Manje ukuthi inkinga yethu umnotho wethu womhlaba uhambe phezu kokukushiswa kwezimila zemvelo, ekhiqiza umsizi: izimboni ezenza yonke lemikhiqizo, imikhumbi kanye namatrukhi ahambisa lemikhiqizo emhlabeni wonke, izimoto zethu kanye namabhilidi kanye nezimpahla esizisebenzisayo, cishe ukuba yonke into.

Ngakho-ke sizolehlisa kanjani izinga lomsizi ngamaphesenti angamashumi ayaisishagalombili singaphindeli ekuhlaleni njengezinjinga?

Labasungulu baloluhwebo bathi indlela yemakethe entsha yokudayisa ngomsizi iyona ndlela ephambili engasombulula lokhu.

Igxathu lokuqala kungaba ukwenza ohulumeni emhlabeni jikelele ukuvuma ukuba nesikalo esithile sokukhiqiza umsizi ongcolisa umoya emkhathini njalo ngonyaka. Lokho ngikubona kuyisu elihle kakhulu.

Ngakho-ke bazoqinisekisa kanjani ukuthi ukukhiqizwa komsizi ongcolisa umoya emkhathini kuhlala ngaphansi kwalesosikalo? Bathi ohulumeni bayosabalalisa izimvume eziyisibalo esithile zokungcolisa umkhathi. Unyaka nonyaka kuyoba nezimvume ezimbalwa uma silandela lelisu labo ukuze sifinyelele emgomeni wethu

Izinkampani ezinombono nazo zizohlanganyela ezinhlelweni zokuhlanzwa nokuqhubekela phambili okuhlelekile. Ngenkathi izimvume sezincipha, zizobiza kakhulu, ngakho-ke, izinkampani ezinezimvume eziningi ziyozidayisela ezinye izinkampani ezisazidinga.

Ilapho-ke kungena khona ukuhwebelana.

Umqondo ukuthi uma sihambisana nalelisu, akuzubaluleka ukuthi ubani ongcolisa umkhathi noma onombono. Sizohlangabezana nokuhlanzwa kwesimo sezulu, sivimbe insambatheka. Futhi lamadoda athatha izigidi ngenkathi eqhamuka nalelisu lokuhlanzwa kokugcoliswa komkhathi, ngisho phela imakethe.

Asiphephise umkhathi, sithole imali, yini engeke siyithande, ngempela? Abanye abangani bami bayaqikelela ngaloluhwebo. Iningi lezinhlangano elimele umkhathi ohlanzekile engizihloniphayo ziyakholelwa kulokhu. Bayazi ukuthi akusona isixazululo esingungqaphambili futhi abathandi ukuthi ikusasa lomkhathi wethu libe sezandleni zalamadoda, kodwa babona ukuthi igxathu elibalulekile futhi kungcono kakhulu kunokuba kungenziwa lutho. Angikaqiniseki ngalokho.

Futhi akumina ngendwa. Iningi lochwepheshe lososayensi, abafundi, abalimi, kanye nabahwebi abanombono bathi “akumiwe kancane”!

Empeleni ngisho nchwepheshe bezokuhweba abaqhamuka nalelisu bathi lokhu kungase kungasizi ukushintsha isimo sezulu. Yilokhu okwenza ngicabange ukuthi baqinisile.

Uma kuziwa ebugebengwini bezimali, njengesubprime mortgages njengamasu oBernie Madoff’, kuhlale kunobuhumusha. Futhi maningi amahumusha ahambisana nalelisu.

Usathane wokuqala ukuthi kunikezwe izimvume zamahala, yingakho abanye abantu lelisu belibiza ngendlela yokunikelwa. Kulenqubo, izimboni ezinkulu ezenza umsizi ongcolisa umoya wasemkhathini ziyothola izimvume eziningi ezibizayo mahala. Mahala!

Ngenkathi zingcolisa kakhulu umoya wasemkhathini, ziyothola kakhulu futhi izimvume.

Kungathi siyababonga futhi ngokudala lenkinga kwasekuqaleni.

Emazweni aseNyakatho, bake bazama ukunikezela lezizimvume mahala. Inani lezimvume lagxuma kakhulu, inani lamandla lagxuma kakhulu kubathengi, futhi uyazi kwenzekalani?

Ukukhiqizwa komsizi ongcolisa umoya emkhathini kwakhuphuka kakhulu! Ingxenye eyenzeka ukuthi abangcolisi bomoya womkhathi benza inzuzo yezigidigidi zamadola. Ochwepheshe bezokuhweba baseMIT bathi leyonto ingenzeka futhi lapha eMelika.

Lezozigidigidi ziqhamuka EMAPHAKETHENI ETHU. Isixazululo sangempela singafaka leyomali ekumiseni isimo esibi sezulu.

Esikhundleni sokunika izimvume kubakhiqizi bomsizi ongcolisa umoya womkhathi, singazidayisa futhi sisebenzise imali uku:
ukwakha umnotho wamandla ohlanzekile
noma sinike izakhamuzi izimali zokukhokhela amafutha abizayo ngenkathi silungiselela ukungena ohlelweni lomnotho wamandla ahlanzekile
noma sisizane nalabo abahlaseleka kakhulu ngenxa yokugcola komoya womkhathi. Abanye bakubiza lokhu ngokukhokha izikweletu zokubulala okwemvelo

Njengoba thina mazwe ayizigwili kakhulu singabangcolisi kakhulu bomoya wasemkhathini amakhulu eminyaka, futhi saphila izimpilo eziphambili kakhulu, ngabe asinawo umbono wokuthi sisize labo abahlaseleke kakhulu?

Kufana nokuthi senze umcimbi omkhulu, sangabamema omakhelwane bathu sase sibanika ukuthi bakhokhela umcimbi wethu. Lokho akukuhle neze.

Uyazi ukuthi ekhulwini lweminyaka ezayo, ngenxa yokushintsha kwesimo sezulu, iziqhingi eziningi zingagcina ziminzile futhi iNhlangano Yomhlaba ithi abalimi abayisishagalolunye kwabayishumi bangalahlekelwa indlela lokumilisa ukudla.

Ngabe isixazululo sangempela ngeke senze labantu bazuze kunalabo abangcolisa umoya womkhathi?

Usathane wesibili ubizwa ngokuHolela.

Izimvume zokuholeleka (offsetting) zidaleka ngenkathi inkampani yehlisa noma inciphisa ukukhiqiza umsizo ongcolisa umoya emkhathini. Bese bethola imvume abangayidayisela omunye umngcolisi womoya womkhathi odinga imvume yokukhiqiza omunye umoya ongcolile. Empeleni , ukwenza kokukodwa kuholela kokunye.
Ingozi ekuholeleni ukuthi kunzima ukuqinisekisa ukuthi umoya ongcolile emkhathini ususiwe ukuze kwenzeke imvume. Kodwa futhi lezizimvume zibiza imali enkulu

Lokhu kudala indlela eyingozi eyenza kube khona ukuholeleka enkohlisweni – kokwenza inkohliso.

Kwezinye izingqinamba inkohliso akuyona umphelandaba, kodwa kuloludaba kuyikhona. Futhi kunenkohliso eningi eyenzekayo.

NjengaseIndonesia, imboni iSinar Mas igawule amahlathi okuzimilela, yadala ukumosheka kwemvelo namasiko. Bathe besuka babethatha umhlaba osumoshekile batshala izihlahla zamafutha epalm.Qagela ukuthi batholani ngalokho? Yebo, izimvume zokuholeleka.

Ngabe umsizi ongcolisa umoya emkhathini uyaphuma? Cha umsizi ongcolisa umoya emkhathini uvele uyangena? Ngingakufungela lokho.

Izinkampani ziyaholeleka ngaphandle kokwenza lutho.

Njengabezimboni ezingcolisa umoya emkhathini ezithi bezihlele ukuzinweba ngamakhulu amabili amaphesenti kodwa behlisa izinhlelo zabo ngekhulu lamaphesenti. Ngokusho kanjalo okungenalusizo, bathola izimvume zokuholeleka – izimvume abangazidayisela abanye ukuze nabo bangcolise kakhulu umoya wasemkhathini!
Lokhu kungubuphukuphuku!

Isibalo somkhonyovu siningi futhi emibi kakhulu yenzeka emazweni aseNingizimu ahluphekayo lapho izimboni ezinkulu zenza noma yini eziyithandayo, kunoma ubani ezifuna ukwenza kuyena. Bese kuthi nemithetho exegayo yenza baqhubeke nokuthola izimvume zokuholeleka ukwenza noma yini.

Usathane wokuqala kanti okwesibili, ukunikelela kanye nokuholeleka, kwenza lesisimo sibe ngesingenabo ubulungiswa futhi esingenamthelela osizayo. Kodwa usathane wokugcina, engimbiza ngokubheka eceleni, ukwenza kube yingozi kakhulu.

Masibheka nje, zikhona ngempela izixazululo, kodwa lendlela entsha yokuhweba enokuxega kanye nezithembiso zabanemali yenze abantu abaningi bakhohlwe ngezixazululo zangempela.

Asikasondeli nakancane ngesivumelwano somhlaba wonke ngokuhweba ngomsizi uma siqala sibheka, futhi lokhu ikhona okumayelana nokuhweba. Kodwa esikhundleni sokugcizelela ngendlela enobulungiswa, sigijimela ukuhweba kanye nokuholeleka.

Mayelana nazozonke iznhlobo zokuholeleka ezingamanga, kanye nokunikelela kwabangcolisa umkhathi, kanye nokwehluleka ukubhekana nokungabikhona kobulungiswa mayelana nokushintsha kwesimo sezulu ucabanga ukuthi amazwe aseNingizimu angakwazi ukuhlanganyela nathi emhlabeni wonke? Ngiyakungabaza lokho. Umangabe izincomo zokuhweba zisimisa ukuthi sivale umsizi, lokhu kungukubheka eceleni okunobungozi kakhulu.

Asidingi ukuthi lamadoda aqhamuke nezindlela ezintsha zezixazululo. Thina – kanye nohulumeni bethu – singenza imithetho sizenzele thina.

Ezweni lakithi, sesinawo umthetho – Umthetho Womoya oHlanzekile (Clean Air Act) – oqinisekisa ukuthi umsizi ongcolisa umoya wasemkhathini futhi inhlangano emelene nokuhlanzwa kwemvelo ekufanele iwuvale. Ngakho-ke silindeni? Phambili ngeEPA phambili! Valani lomsizi!

Empeleni . umthetho waseMelika mayelana nokuvalwa kanye nokuhweba owathulwa ngo2009 ibukela phansi iClean Air Act, bese ishiyela abezimakethe ukulungisa lenkinga. Uma ukuvala kanye nokuhweba kwenza buthakathaka ukuthi senze imithetho eqinile, lokhu kungukubheka eceleni.

Izakhamuzi zomhlaba ezinakekelayo ngalenkinga kufanele ziphumele obala futhi ziphoqe ukuthi kwenziwe kabusha iminotho ezosiyekisa ukusebenzisa izimpahla zemvelo. Kodwa ukuvala kanye nokuhweba kwenza izakhamuzi zicabange ukuthi yonke into izolunga uma sishayela kancane, sishintsha amalambu kamandla kagesi bese kuthi lamadoda aqhubeke nokunye. Uma ukuvala kudala intuthuko engamanga, indlela eyingozi le yokubheka eceleni.

Lezizincomo zokuvala nokuhweba indlela nje yokuqhubeka nezamabhizinisi.

Njengamanje, iMelika ixhasa amandla ezimpahla zemvelo kakhulu kunezimpahla eziphindwa zisetshenziswe. Ini! Akufanele ngabe sixhasa izimpahla zamandla emvelo nhlobo!

Lamadoda ungathi awaboni ukuthi indlela elula ukugcina umsizi uphephile emhlabathini.

Isikhulu sezombusazwe saseMelika,uRick Boucher, ongumngani omkhulu wezimboni zamalahle yena uvotela ukuvala nokuhweba. Uthi lokhu “kuqinisekisa izimboni ukuthi ziqhubeke nokusebenzisa amalahle”.

Akukho mthetho oncoma ukusetshenziswa kwamalahle ongavimba ukushintsha kwesimo sezulu. Nhlobo.

Ukuvala, imithetho eqinile, ukusukuma kwezakhamuzi, kanye nezimali zomsizi ukuze sikhokhe izikweletu zokungcolisa imvelo kanye nokudala kabusha ezinye izindlela zomnotho wamandla ahlanzekile, ilokhu okungenza sisindise ikusasa lethu.

Uma ngesikhathi esizayo kukhona othi ukuvala nokuhweba ikona okungcono kakhulu, ungabakholwa neze. Empeleni okungcono ukhulume nabo. Ngoba kungase kwenzeke ukuthi nabo bafuna ikusasa elivikelekile mayelana nokushintsha kwesimo sezulu. Mhlawumbe sebekhohliwe-nje ukuthi awukwazi ukuthengisa ngesixazululo esingeke sabasebenzela.

Ngiyazi ukuthi sonke ngeke sathanda ukunikela ngalutho, ukuvikela umkhathi futhi sibe izigwili sisenza lokho. Lena inkinga enkulu abantu basemhlabeni aseke bakhekana nayo.

Angeke siyiguqule nglowomqondo – ngomqondo wabo- osifake kulenkinga kwasekuqaleni. Sidinga okusha.

Ngeke kube lula, kodwa isikhathi sokuthi sibe namaphupho amakhulu. Isikhathi sokuqhamuka nesixazululo sokushintsha kwesimo sezulu okuzosebenza ngempela.

(Siyabonga Faith ka Manzi!)

{/tabs}

Baix en carboni (catalan)

Un documental que fa un recorregut per la nova economia del canvi climàtic, una economia que, per a molts, és una realitat que ja comença a donar beneficis. El documental compta amb el testimoni d’aquells que fa uns anys van ser qualificats de visionaris i que, ara, poden establir les bases de l’economia del futur.

  
 
Al “Sense ficció” hem mostrat com la lluita contra el canvi climàtic és un repte, però també pot ser una oportunitat de negoci. Baix en Carboni" fa un viatge per aquesta nova economia del canvi climàtic, una “economia del CO2” que ja és una realitat i que, a més, és rendible. El documental presenta els casos dels visionaris que fa anys van veure com havia de ser el futur i que van lluitar per fer realitat un projecte econòmic i mediambiental. Són els creadors d’aquest nou sistema al qual ara tothom es vol apuntar: treballen en empreses, ajuntaments, universitats. Són enginyers, alcaldes de poble, economistes, agricultors… i no van defallir quan ningú creia en les seves propostes. Són els mateixos que veuen que efectivament hi ha una crisi energètica i de recursos. Però aquesta crisi no els espanta, la consideren una crisi pel canvi. Un canvi que no serà còmode, però que ha de ser positiu. 
 

Climate Justice, Ethics and the Copenhagen Agenda

 
Summary
Mary Robinson and other leaders from the public, academic and NGO sectors lead a discussion on emerging institutions and processes for applying equity and human rights to guide the long term vision and decision-making on mitigation, adaptation, REDD, carbon markets and technology transfer.
 
Location
United Nations Climate Change Conference
Copenhagen, Denmark

Event Date
12.15.09

Speakers
Michael K. Dorsey,
Laurel Fletcher,
Tamra Gilbertson,
Larry Lohmann,
Cymie Payne,
Mary Robinson,
Gail Whiteman
 
 
WATCH FULL PROGRAM         41 min 13 sec
01. Introduction
02. Mary Robinson: The Intersection of Climate Change and Human Rights
03. Incorporating Human Rights into Climate Change Solutions
04. The Struggle for Climate Justice
05. Panel Introduction
06. Michael Dorsey: Climate Justice and Accountability
07. Larry Lohmann: The Downsides of REDD
08. REDD and Human Rights
09. The Difficulties of Fixing REDD
10. Tamra Gilbertson: Cap and Trade, REDD, and the Carbon Market
11. Laurel Fletcher: The Negative Effects of Climate Change Policies
12. Gail Whiteman: Involving the Private Sector in Climate Justice
13. Group Discussion Session
14. Discussion Summaries
15. Group 1: Climate Justice
16. Group 2: REDD
17. Group 3: Climate Change Legislation
18. Group 4: The Business Sector
19. Mary Robinson’s Closing Comments
 

The Carbon Hunters

FRONTLINE/World journeys to the remote rainforests of Brazil, where several American companies have been on the hunt for an increasingly valuable new commodity - carbon. But investing in big tracts of forest in order to soak up the carbon they may have to account for in proposed energy legislation is not without its costs. 
 

The Carbon Hunters was reported by Mark Schapiro, produced by Andres Cediel & co-produced by Daniela Broitman.

STORY SYNOPSIS
In a remote corner of Brazil’s Atlantic coast, they say time is a fiction. This ancient forest is seemingly unspoiled by modern life — beyond the reach of men, machines, and markets.

But a closer look reveals something very different happening here.

"I’m tracking a group of hunters," correspondent Mark Schapiro says, as he hikes deep into the forest. "They’re after something that has become one of the hottest commodities in recent years — and they think they can capture it with just a tape measure and a pen."

The men Schapiro is following aren’t after illegal game or even illegal logging. They want what is stored inside the trees: carbon dioxide.

"How much carbon would you think is in this tree right here?" Schapiro asks Ricardo da Britez, the chief forest scientist in this reserve, pointing to one of an endless line of trees.

"I think it probably contains between 90 and 100 kilos of carbon," da Britez says. He oversees the carbon counting here, and his measurements are being followed closely by people around the world who are trying to figure out how to buy and sell this carbon on the international market.

So if carbon is selling on the market for about $10 a ton, Schapiro asks, what is this tree worth on the carbon market?

"One dollar," da Britez says.

The math seems simple — but who gets the dollar?

"The credits from that carbon," da Britez says," belong to General Motors."

How did an American company end up owning the carbon in trees? It all started in 1991, when conservation groups identified this area, known as Guaraquecaba, as one of the most threatened eco-hot spots in the world. How did an American company end up owning the carbon in trees? It all started in 1991, when conservation groups identified this area, known as Guaraquecaba, as one of the most threatened eco-hot spots in the world. The American group The Nature Conservancy tried for years to raise funds to protect this land, but the big money didn’t start pouring into the region until fears began to rise about climate change. And it was a new reason to save the trees — for their carbon — that brought in three large American companies.

"The companies were interested in carbon credits," says da Britez.

Da Britez explains how, in 2000, American Electric Power, the utility giant, bought into an area the size of Manhattan. Then came the car company General Motors, and finally, Chevron Oil. The three companies invested a total of $18 million to preserve this forest. The Nature Conservancy brokered the deal through a Brazilian environmental group called SPVS, founded by Clovis Borges.

"We will purchase part of the land of the region and preserve these areas," Borges tells Schapiro. But the carbon credits earned from the land, he says, will belong to these companies.

What is a carbon credit? And why are so many people so interested in buying and selling something that didn’t even exist five years ago? It’s a question Schapiro has been traveling the globe to investigate. Before leaving for Brazil, he met with veteran Wall Street executive Tom Lewis, now the CEO of NYMex’s Green Exchange. "People often ask the question, what is the difference between carbon and other commodities? In many cases, it’s exactly the same as other commodities. It trades precisely in the same way," he says. "Globally, it’s considered about a $300 billion market today. But the expectation is that within a decade that market could be between $2 and $3 trillion."

Where would all that money come from? Climate legislation before Congress would, for the first time, force big polluters to reduce their emissions, or purchase offsets. One of the nation’s biggest emitters is American Electric Power.

"The theory that we have is really pretty straightforward," says CEO Michael Morris. "You give me a carbon credit, and I’ll pass it along to my customers."

AEP is the largest operator of coal-fired power plants in the country. He told Schapiro that investing in cleaner technology is expensive and takes time, and the only way he would be able to meet emission targets would be to purchase carbon credits.

"We’ll purchase credits; we’ll be in the credit market, along with many, many other people," says Morris. "And so we need the kinds of things that will create credits in the most cost-effective way."

The cheapest and most readily available offsets on the market these days are forests. And most of us, if asked, would say it sounds like a great plan: Save a tree, and soak up the carbon.

But most of us don’t live here. The people who do, look at it differently.

"The land isn’t even theirs; it’s ours," says one farmer who lives between the GM and AEP reserves. "We’re workers who live from the forest. They don’t want human beings in the forest."

With all these new assets on the line, forest enforcement in Guarequecaba has been stepped up. A branch of the state military — called the Green Police, or Força Verde — has begun protecting the forest from the people who live there.

Antonio Alves’s land borders the GM reserve, and he has had multiple run-ins with the Green Police. On one occasion, he says his roof was leaking and he couldn’t afford the materials to fix it. So he went out to find wood in the forest where he lives.

"And then the two police officers showed up. One puts a gun right here," he says. "I looked at him and turned off my chainsaw. They handcuffed me right there."

"There is a law that you can’t cut down a tree. It’s not legal. But if you’re not clear-cutting forest, just cutting three or four trees to build a house, I don’t think it’s a crime. They think it is."

Alves spent 11 days in jail for his crime, and has since moved away because of continued harassment by the Green Police. It’s a complaint that’s increased since the carbon reserves were established.

The Nature Conservancy declined to speak to FRONTLINE/World about this story. In public statements, they point to the jobs they’ve created in the reserve and their reforestation of degraded lands. They make no mention of those being displaced from the forest. And The Nature Conservancy’s local partner, Clovis Burges, doesn’t apologize for what they’ve accomplished there.

"During our 17 years in Guaraquecaba, we were accused of everything," he says. "This is part of the process. We really were able to develop one project that can link the carbon with conservation. Maybe we are not right. We are trying to deal with something very tough, very hard. And we don’t have enough time. We are running against time because destruction of nature is happening everywhere, very quickly."

The stakes in Brazil are clear everywhere you go. Deforestation has made Brazil into the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas emitter. For years, they looked the other way. But now Brazil is facing the problem head on.

"The police ahead of us have heard the guys we’re going after may be coming down this road to escape as we go toward them," Schapiro says, as he heads out to the frontlines of deforestation with a team of federal agents.

There they were: illegal loggers. Truck after truck, loaded with logs, all day and into the night. This was just one road in one corner of the Amazon, but it was a scene likely playing itself out across the country. The agents took stock of their catch.

"A middleman will sell it to a mill for $1,000," one agent says about the price of one tree. In other words, a tree worth $1 on the carbon market could be worth a thousand times that to an illegal sawmill. Reversing these economics, the UN estimates, will take an immediate global investment of $25 billion. But who will pay for it? And to whom?

For centuries, foreigners have been coming to Brazil to extract its riches, many starting in the port city of Manaus. It’s a booming free-for-all, at the gateway to the Amazon. But a local governor, Eduardo Braga, is turning the tables.

"If you come to an Amazonian and say, ‘Well, give up all your jobs, all your economic base, because we need to save the trees,’ they are going to reply, ‘No, I need to feed my kids.’

Braga is a savvy politician, and he is getting political traction by asserting control over his state’s forests.

"Taking care of our forests is fundamental for our future generations," he says. "Our people are the guardians of the forest. And we need to be recognized and paid for the environmental benefits that the forest creates for rich countries . . . for the developed countries."

In the remote Juma Reserve, residents are actually paid not to cut down their trees. And any carbon credits generated from this preservation are supposed to come back to the community. Where do they get the money to do all this?

Braga made a deal with the Marriott hotel chain, which gave $2 million to kick this project off the ground. And Braga has been courting corporate sponsors to fund more than a dozen more reserves in the Amazon.

Juma is considered to be the model — an experiment with a new strategy to protect the trees and pay the people.

Families receive $25 every month through a program called Bolsa Floresta.

But for residents like Dalvina Almeida, it takes a two-day roundtrip journey by boat just to receive their stipend.

"We used to plant a lot," Dalvina’s husband says. "When this became a reserve they told us that we could no longer plant in the forest. Everyone signed up for Bolsa Floresta. But Bolsa Floresta can’t sustain my family."

And some Brazilians dispute the very idea of relying on corporations to save the forests.

Marina Silva is a senator from Braga’s neighboring state. She grew up in the Amazon and is celebrated for slowing Brazil’s rates of deforestation.

She says that America needs to reduce its own emissions first, before Brazilian forests are put on the table.

"Otherwise, we are going to transfer the problem one more time to the developing countries," she says. "And the developed countries are going to continue their same practices. The problem is not going to stop."

But carbon credits remain the key ingredient in the American strategy. At Copenhagen, the U.S. government pledged $1 billion to help bring the world’s trees into the carbon market.

And, anticipating a new energy bill in Congress, multinationals continue to buy up forests to offset their emissions.

"You always hear this classic win-win line, and I’ve never really bought much into the win-win — you win, I win, how can that be?" AEP CEO Morris says. "But at the end of the day, if you think about biodiversity and you think about the capacity of forests to do the things that they do and you know that they are a very effective carbon sink, it just makes sense. And protecting the current and remaining forests of the world and the deforestation effort, we think, makes a lot of sense."

"We can’t treat this problem like it is a business, a commercial relationship between countries," says Silva. "To talk about dealing with this issue just from the perspective of carbon credits is to skirt the responsibility we have to deal with the dangers our planet is facing."