Bolivia - Why We Refused To Sign Up At Cancun - Guardian

[hatrack]

Diplomacy is traditionally a game of alliance and compromise. Yet in the early hours of Saturday 11 December, Bolivia found itself alone against the world: the only nation to oppose the outcome of the United Nations climate change summit in Cancún. We were accused of being obstructionist, obstinate and unrealistic. Yet in truth we did not feel alone, nor are we offended by the attacks. Instead, we feel an enormous obligation to set aside diplomacy and tell the truth.

The "Cancún accord" was presented late Friday afternoon, and we were given two hours to read it. Despite pressure to sign something – anything – immediately, Bolivia requested further deliberations. This text, we said, would be a sad conclusion to the negotiations. After we were denied any opportunity to discuss the text, despite a lack of consensus, the president banged her gavel to approve the document.

Many commentators have called the Cancún accord a "step in the right direction." We disagree: it is a giant step backward. The text replaces binding mechanisms for reducing greenhouse gas emissions with voluntary pledges that are wholly insufficient. These pledges contradict the stated goal of capping the rise in temperature at 2C, instead guiding us to 4C or more. The text is full of loopholes for polluters, opportunities for expanding carbon markets and similar mechanisms – like the forestry scheme Redd – that reduce the obligation of developed countries to act.

Bolivia may have been the only country to speak out against these failures, but several negotiators told us privately that they support us. Anyone who has seen the science on climate change knows that the Cancún agreement was irresponsible. In addition to having science on our side, another reason we did not feel alone in opposing an unbalanced text at Cancún is that we received thousands of messages of support from the women, men, and young people of the social movements that have stood by us and have helped inform our position. It is out of respect for them, and humanity as a whole, that we feel a deep responsibility not to sign off on any paper that threatens millions of lives.

EDIT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/dec/21/bolivia-oppose-cancun-climate-agreement

[XemaSab]

1. But... but... Cancun was a resounding success

I read it in the E/E forum so it must be true!

[kristopher]

2. No, I don't think you did.

"Read" it in the E/E forum, that is. Since the article you are referring to did not contain that thought, it is clear that "reading" the article wasn't part of your preparation for writing your post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=268146&mesg_id=268146

[XemaSab]

4. Hmm... I could have sworn I read this line somewhere:

"The international climate negotiations in Cancun, Mexico, have concluded, and despite the gloom-and-doom predictions that dominated the weeks and months leading up to Cancun, the Sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP-16) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) must be judged a success."

[kristopher]

7. And...

How does that support your "resounding success" hyperbole?

[XemaSab]

16. You know what your problem is, k?

You worship the free market.

Meanwhile, most of us here are unapologetic socialists who realize that capitalism is a failed system that will keep us on fossil fuels for the next hundred years.

I hope you and the invisible hand have a good time there.

[joshcryer]

18. +1

kristopher believes cap and trade is sufficient, the socialists here believe that fee and dividend, and nothing less, is sufficient. It's a completely different background. And I no which side to be on because the markets have shown that in 20 years of knowing about the problem, they've done jack shit.

It helps that the market people are liars.

[joshcryer]

17. Expectations were lowered and it was thought to be a failure. To have someone say it was a success..

...automatically resounds, especially on E&E. The quote supports what she said. And the OP shows just how unsuccessful it really was, Cancun is a step back, not a step forward.

[phantom power]

3. I'm beginning to think it would be more helpful if we all just admitted we don't intend to fix it.

These fucking get-togethers are all just a bunch of people idly hoping that by some miracle everybody else will agree to doing something substantial.

[XemaSab]

5. Not only do we totally lack the will to fix it

I think it's clear that we CANNOT fix it.

I'm increasingly feeling like people who insist we can fix it if we all clap our hands and say we believe in fairies switch over to CFL light bulbs and buy Priuses are as deeply in denial about the scope of the problem as people who are just outright deniers.

[kristopher]

6. So that explains why you reject every renewable energy project to come along?

[XemaSab]

9. Yes, that's exactly it

You've got me 100% figured out. Congratulations.

[joshcryer]

19. Xema is more involved in renewable projects than you are.

:hi:

[pscot]

10. The whole damn country is in denial

And hoping for change. Or the Rapture.

[lfairban]

13. You are a little behind the curve.

CFLs were last year. You need to buy LED lights, and get an E-bike.

[Nihil]

20. I agree with most of what you say but disagree with this bit ...

> I'm increasingly feeling like people who insist we can fix it if we all <snip!>
> switch over to CFL light bulbs and buy Priuses are as deeply in denial about the
> scope of the problem as people who are just outright deniers.

I agree with it if the people are just talking about it (or claiming to present
grand "strategies" as a way of "talking about it importantly") but I totally disagree
if they are actually doing it - living the change rather than telling people one
thing whilst doing the Business As Usual back-slap over martinis & champagne.

The only way to make any headway in this issue is to lead by example.

Once you are doing that, use the evidence, the facts of *your* change to support
your requests for others to do likewise. Encourage people by showing them that
the bullshit from the "policy makers" (i.e., their sponsors) doesn't apply and
that *action* produces results.

Those results are what we need, not the bullshit from lobbiests, the waffle from
politicians or the crap from deniers. We don't need time-wasting extravagant jaunts
to holiday resorts for non-entity politicians to be distracting people from seeing
the real problems.

No, it will not "fix" the problem - it is too late for a genuine fix - but it will
achieve two important goals:
1) It will stop the problem getting actively worse every day (i.e., slow down the
current acceleration towards the cliff).
2) It will prepare the people (i.e., those who make that effort) for the inevitable
crunch: the occupants of a car that is braking hard (even if too late) will have a
much higher chance of survival than one that is still accelerating when it hits the
immovable object.

:rant:

(BTW, the "you" & "your" in the above isn't aimed at XemaSab - who, like a number
of people here on E/E, *is* leading by example in many ways - but is a generic "you".)

[XemaSab]

21. Even if the entire population of the United States became "enlightened"

and we all switched over to cars that get 80 mpg and insulated our houses perfectly and used the most energy-efficient lights and appliances, we would only be decreasing the rate at which we are changing the climate. Even if we all biked everywhere and slapped some panels on the roof it still wouldn't be enough.

Either until not just the American public but the whole entire planet is willing to give up ALL internal-combustion cars and trucks, eat strictly local foods, give up plastic containers and appliances, and basically live like the Amish, or until we find some magic source of free electricity that doesn't have the negative press that nukes have, we're making the problem worse.

The electricity powering my computer and the heat keeping me toasty this morning don't come from nowhere, and how is the energy I use different from the energy used by some redneck sitting in a trailer in Bakersfield?

[Nihil]

22. Yep, "even if ..."

> Even if the entire population of the United States became "enlightened"
> and we all switched over to cars that get 80 mpg and insulated our houses perfectly
> and used the most energy-efficient lights and appliances, we would only be
> decreasing the rate at which we are changing the climate.

And decreasing that rate is better than increasing it.
I'm not claiming that doing the above is waving a magic wand that will fix the
world's problems, just that it's better than not doing the above (on both an
individual basis and a society one).


> how is the energy I use different from the energy used by some redneck
> sitting in a trailer in Bakersfield?

Qualitatively identical, quantitatively different, inspirationally worlds apart
(unless said redneck isn't in fact a stereotypical one and is instead using the
same equipment as you with the same mind-set as you in which case no, there is no
difference at all: the redneck has learned the same lesson with regard to the
environment as you have - i.e., the political/cultural differences between you
are outside of the scope of the environmental comparison and so rendered irrelevent
with regard to this discussion).

[The2ndWheel]

8. Can't more than don't intend to

Grow the economy, and we'll have a greater presence in the environment. Contract the economy, and we have no idea what to do with so many people.

[GliderGuider]

11. One little country dares to speak the truth.

Bomb them. Now. :nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

[hatrack]

12. Mmmmmmmmm - lithium! Tasty, succulent, strategic lithium!

Yummy!

[phantom power]

14. mmmmmm!

[XemaSab]

15. Most of the people making policy in the US could stand to be on lithium

:P