Saving the World at Copenhagen7 December 2009 | by Pat Ryan
Introduction
The UN draft climate change Treaty, the Copenhagen Climate Treaty that is replacing the Kyoto Protocol which ends in 2012, is a blueprint to save the world.
The right and blogosphere call it a rambling, incoherent polemic designed to secure employment for the political industrial carbon complex, political correctness gone mad, anti-democratic in that it imposes a new world ‘Government’ or a combination of all of these.
Negotiators have released a draft version of the new global agreement on global warming on which there will be further deliberation at Copenhagen from 7-18 December at a meeting of 192 countries and over 15,000 officials. The draft is the result of 8 international conferences and many versions to define the issues. This may be the last chance to save the planet.
The full 181 page draft is available here
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdfThe draft text has no official status yet, and must be formally approved before negotiators can start to determine its final shape, which will probably be in 2010. The draft is a like a multi-choice test with square bracketed alternative choices from which the delegates can select.
The Tipping Point
The Treaty is a real attempt to avoid the ‘tipping point’. Leading science commentators, such as HRH Prince Charles, have already defined the time at which the world will collapse environmentally and economically through failure to sign up to the Treaty; it is 9 July 2017 at 2.15 p.m.
Removing the Problem Areas
The UN has determined that by 2050, without appropriate intervention, the population could increase by 50% to over 9 billion. This increase in developed country population is clearly unsustainable given the greater developed country carbon-footprint and would reduce the ability of the world to meet its carbon responsibilities.
Following ground-breaking research in New Zealand, it is also likely that ownership of large dogs which have a far larger carbon foot-print than an urban human in Bangladesh, should face controls leading to significant reductions.
Similarly, the noted economist Lord Stern has called for an end to the eating of meat, to reduce our carbon footprint.
A Wrenching Transformation is Required
For this new treaty to be finalised, every country must sign up. This is a challenging requirement; developing countries need significant financial assistance. It is possibly less difficult for developed countries which have substantial populations that are prepared to face Al Gore’s proposed “wrenching transformation” required including: manufacturing job losses, lower wages, reliance on public and traditional non-carbon transport options, specific carbon taxes on meat, petrol, dairy, thermally generated electricity, increases in costs associated with an emissions trading scheme, an elimination of canine populations, a reduction in problem human populations and SUV’s and at the same time providing substantial increases in aid to developing countries such as China, Africa, South Korea and India.
The preamble is not without its limitations. While noting a requirement to increase agricultural production and at the same time reducing agricultural emissions, it fails to acknowledge that the only way to do this is to minimise meat production and dairying and encourage an organic vegetarian culture.
The only way that communities, particularly groups worth saving, identified in the Treaty as “women, children, indigenous groups, rural groups and the elderly,” can be protected and fed while growing food in a carbon-neutral way, is for the rest of the population, particularly the carbon gluttons of developed countries like America and New Zealand, to be significantly reduced, for meat production and consumption to end and dogs eliminated.
Giving Power to the Oppressed
The draft is inclusive, giving voice to and requiring consultation and the approval of all oppressed people who are “already in vulnerable situations”, particularly in developing countries “owing to factors such as geography, poverty, gender, age, indigenous or minority status and disability”.
The draft requires special protection for groups “[especially] ... women [and] children [the elderly and indigenous peoples] [and local communities and rural populations] [including through promoting a gender perspective and a community-based approach to adaptation] [in particular gender and youth concerns, recognizing that women and children are particularly affected by the impacts of climate change];]”
The preamble notes that without a new global warming treaty these people will be denied “the full and effective enjoyment of human rights including the right to self determination, statehood, life, food and health.”
The treaty is exhaustive in its proposed reach; even the current oil-rich producing and exporting countries such as the Gulf States are able to claim funds from the ‘Copenhagen Climate Facility’ as this treaty will reduce oil consumption and hence Gulf States’ revenues to the position where they are only about 10 times that of New Zealand per capita.
Funding for the Oppressed
The draft notes that developing countries need not do anything unless it is funded by the west:
“The extent of mitigation actions undertaken by developing countries will depend on the extent of effective provision of financial and technological support by developed country Parties.”
For developing countries, the issues are around securing enough financial resources to grow their economies in a carbon-neutral manner and thereby eliminate poverty. Given the scepticism of developing countries to the west, where many countries blithely exceed their adopted carbon reduction targets without penalty, it is reasonable for developing countries to reject becoming a formal signatory to the treaty without trillion dollar annual payments and free technology transfer and mandatory “deep cuts”, with accompanying enforcement mechanisms, against the oppressing developed countries.
Payments for Loss of Dignity Caused by Past Emissions
The draft is visionary in its breadth of vision; not only is it proposed to fund for the future, funds must be provided for the past oppression of developing countries by compensation payments for “damage to the [developing county’s] economy and [must] also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees ;and “Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures”. [at p122]
These compensation payments are also visionary in that they apply to the current period of global stasis and cooling experienced from 1998. This stasis and cooling is clearly part of ‘climate change’ and is likely to have had a more significant effect on early-season crop failures, which have occurred over the past 4 years, contributing in no small way to “loss of dignity” for developing countries.
A “massive scaling up of financial resources” will be required to fund all the proposed activities. It is estimated that this will cost over $800 billion over five years, with additional funding requirements assessed on an as-needed basis and levied against countries like New Zealand. Aside from straight levies and fines, taxing powers are available “including, but not limited to, a levy on aviation and maritime transport.”
New Zealand’s Contribution to Global Salvation
The draft Treaty proposes that developed countries shall provide “mandatory contributions”:
“[…of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties]”
This represents an annual contribution based on 2009 NZ GDP figures of $NZ 1.3 billion and for Australia $7 billion annually.
This is achievable if the New Zealand expenditure on climate change, local government and Research Science and Technology is abandoned. Once the IPCC has control over climate planning, national/ regional/local government plans and climate, there will be no need for these independent sovereign authorities; in fact, they will simply be a replication of our international responsibilities.
Alternatively, New Zealand’s current Operating Deficit is $10.4 billion. The addition of a further annual payment of $1.3 billion does not significantly alter New Zealand’s precarious financial position.
The payments by developed countries are mandatory in the draft and signatories are required to pay billions of dollars annually to the governing body as well as to developing countries, such as China, Indonesia and South Korea “for the period up to 2012” and between $US 50-140 billion each year thereafter as well as mandatory technology transfer and payments to the prospective co-ordinated international governance modality.
Co-ordinated International Governance Modality
The use of the term ‘Government’ to portray the co-ordinated international governance structure with :
- defined western country levies,
- potential fining capacity against developed countries,
- ability to set border tariffs for non-complying developed countries,
- large planning and funding capacity and - direction and control of tens of thousands of employees and sub-contractors, is clearly excessive.
But the International Government conspiracy theorists point to the draft at clause 38, page 18, which refers to:
“The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by COP [the Committee of the Parties] with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies.”
This is clearly a mistake. Someone simply failed to do an appropriate spell-check and replace government with something like “co-ordinated international governance modality”.
Private Sector Involvement
It just as fanciful as saying that this is an attempt at One World Government, to say that this proposed treaty is an attempt at the formation of a huge international public sector bureaucracy.
There are no barriers to private sector involvement. Encouragement of financial broker and bank control of ETS schemes underlies the treaty; this will provide a huge pool of potential employment for workers laid off from manufacturing firms. There are also myriad opportunities as international and national planners, and carbon trade lawyers and analysts. This change in employment itself, should contribute to a significant reduction in the employment related carbon footprint.
Similarly, General Electric (GE) has graciously volunteered to act as the banker for the trillions of dollars that this co-ordinated international governance modality and associated bureaucracy must control. GE Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Imelda is on record that this offer is consistent with his and President Obama’s contention that the US should “drive the climate change solution.”
Planning to Save the World
The draft treaty requires dozens of plans to be undertaken in developing countries, such as National adaption plans, Low-emission development strategies and plans; Renewable energy strategies and plans, technology action plans and technology development plans. Insurance, disaster, poverty reduction strategies and nationally sustainable development plans are also required to be undertaken and approved by the co-ordinated international governance modality.
These Plans are required to be replicated “at the local, subnational, national and regional levels, as appropriate] [taking into account the country-driven approach, especially the indigenous peoples’ and the local communities’ views and the most vulnerable groups, such as indigenous peoples, the artisanal fishermen, women, children, and elderly, among others]; [Be [undertaken within a nationally coordinated approach] [consistent with] [integrated] [inserted] [into] local, [subnational], national [and regional] [development objectives],[programmes] [plans] [and policies] [and coordinated with regional programmes without compromising the countries’ sovereignty];] regional inter-country co-ordination.”
All these plans are required to be updated every 3-4 years by every developing country, but paid for by developed countries.
These plans will require “enhance[d] data collection to inform adaptation planning” and creation of new university and polytechnic training courses in every country in the world “that allows urban planners to integrate climate risk management into long-term development planning”.
The planning paid for by developing countries will also provide much-needed 3-4 year plans which “include governance structures that encourage efficient use and coordination of local, national and international resources.”
This seems ideally suited to planners from the former Soviet bloc who will have had substantial experience in this form of planning, although most leading New Zealand climate change planners and local government planners share a similar perspective.
Most NZ planners already propose that they manage all economic activity through co-ordinated regional, national and district resource plans as a first step in managing climate change.
In order for the planning, strategy and training components to be realised, the “Co-ordinated International Governance Modality” will need to employ at least 300 people in every developing country in the world. This alone will cost developed countries about $US3 billion per year.
Unfortunately in New Zealand there are planners and environmental consultants who point to the current cooling period and absence of current sea-level rise in New Zealand and the Islands as an indication that “global warming is not happening”.
Not only does this miss the point that the issue is now about (any) climate change, including cooling, but that such statements border on internationally treasonous. The Co-ordinated International Governance Modality will need to determine how to deal with these persons as it is possible they could affect impressionable people or young scientists with their focus on science, data and evidence instead of the approved theory, future hypothesis about climate and planning modality.
Significant Others
The proposed treaty says that the “ government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization” will have five major departments or “windows”, under the multilateral climate change window aside from the current Secretariat, an “Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies”. These departments are;
(a) Adaptation (b) Compensation (including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components), (c) Technology; (d) Mitigation; and (e) REDD (the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries).
The cost for this has not yet been fully assessed but will fall as a levy on developed countries. The administrative costs will be in the order of $US 10-15 billion per year, although this has not yet been fully determined.
In order for this to work, developed countries will need to institute a significant emissions levy on all goods and services, in addition to any value added taxes. It will also require the sale of emission Units under Emissions Trading Scheme to corporate entities rather than the current plan of gifting or allowance.
It is also proposed that there be a differentiated system of payment so that defaulting countries, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, pay significantly more both for administrative costs and to developing countries such as China, Africa, South Korea and eventually, the Gulf States.
Legally Binding Requirements
In order to make this treaty work, the mechanisms need to be legally binding. Several commentators and local politicians have suggested that the proposed treaty is optional. This is not the proposal. Clause 30 proposes:
“The provision of financial and technical support by developed country Parties for adaptation programmes in developing countries is a commitment under the Convention that must be urgently fulfilled. Commitments made by Annex I Parties to support implementation of the Adaptation Framework through financial and technology transfer shall be legally binding, with provisions for a [monitoring, reporting and verification] mechanism to ensure compliance.
The proposed treaty also provides that mitigation actions are also “legally binding economy wide [as are] absolute quantified emission reduction commitments” but this is only for developed countries.
Mitigation actions by developing countries
“… are voluntary and nationally appropriate actions, supported and enabled by technology, finance and capacity-building, which reduce or avoid emissions relative to baseline.” (at p58)
In order for financial and other support to be “legally binding” on developed countries, there will need to be enforcement measures.
While clause 46.h states that nationally, regionally and locally there must be “means and processes” for enforcement at the country level, preamble paragraph 7 (at p147) provides the option that “Recognizing also the urgency and the immediacy of the climate change problem the Parties agreed on a legally binding Adaptation Framework as set out in subsequent sections” and there is also an option (at p179) that “capacity-building support” along with money and technology transfer (at no cost) “shall be a legally binding obligation of developed country Parties, with consequences for non-compliance.”
These consequences for non-compliance include fines for developed countries (at p43).
These must be significant to avoid the Canadian-type response which is to announce significant emissions reductions then permit business as usual without penalty.
Conclusion
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer has laid out four pre-conditions for success of the proposed Copenhagen treaty:
(a) “clear and ambitious reduction targets from industrialised countries”,
(b) “Clarity on what major developing countries will do to limit the growth of their emissions”
(c) “Adequate financing from industrialised countries to help developing nations adapt… and mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions” and
(d) “clarity on the institutional mechanism” that will govern the finances, which in large part must be controlled by developing nations.
This draft, while not perfect, addresses many of these concerns in a gender, gender alternative and culturally appropriate manner. New Zealand, like every other developed country, is clearly failing in its emissions reductions plan when set against the UN call for a collective emissions cut of 25-45% by 2020 for developed countries.
However there is an option that has not been considered but which in large part philosophically underlies the Green Party’s and the McGillicuddy Serious Party’s plans (Metiria Turei having been a member of both).
That is the Great Leap Backward. It will be decades before carbon minimising technologies sare available commercially. In the meantime, by adopting alternative carbon zero technologies requiring less energy usage and adopting the dietary limitations and culling measures discussed previously, New Zealand in one major initiative will eliminate its emissions problem, its employment problem and will become a developing country and hence receive potential billion dollar annual payments, free technology and payments for the hundreds of UN and thousands of NZ climate change planners required by the draft Treaty.
http://www.gauntlet.co.nz/Stories/2_03.htm
