What if you had a climate change conference and nobody came? Or, what if people came and were turned away at the door? That is essentially what happened at the COP 15 in Copenhagen. While that shouldn't be the only focus of the 2 week event, that in theory, was to create a new framwork for adressing serious and rapid climate change, it can not be ignored. The fact is that representatives from civil society went from having about 20,000 delegates down to just 90 in a matter of days. The message is clear that key stakeholders such as labour, environmental organizations, indigenous people, etc. are not seen as relevant to the UN and certainly not to the powerful, rich nations and big business interests who have highjacked the UNFCCC process.
While we still had access to the proceedings, it was informative and disapointing to see how countries such as Canada had come to the COP with little or no intention of leaving Copenhagen with any deal that would be fair, accountable or binding (as was being demanded by the civil society contingent that was eventually "shut out" of the proceedings). Canada's "contributions" during the Kyoto Protocol meetings clearly showed their contempt for any process that would hold them accountable or that would be of benefit to the world's "emerging economies" ( another term for the world's poorest countries and those most in danger from the effects of climate change).
The positive side was that civil society did not just accept exclusion without a response. Although there were demostrations that recieved extensive press due to police over-reaction to small pockets of protesters, much more was happening. Blue/Green meetings and activities continued in spite of the problems created by the lack of physical facilities created by lack of access to the Bella Centre (site of COP 15). Now, more than ever, our work must intensify and it must be clear to the UN that our role in the UNFCCC is as important as the governments and big business interests that have been (and would like to continue) driving the agenda of these meetings.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Let's Keep the Blue Green Movement Moving!
There is a lot of dissatisfaction among environmentalists and trade unionists with the outcome of the Copenhagen talks. World leaders did not get the job done and a lot of work remains.
But still, I could not not help but be moved by the number of environmental and trade union activists that showed up in Copenhagen. And I could not help feeling that a new emerging alliance between the labour and environmental movements has some real potential.
Together we have more credibility and a stronger voice that we do individually.
We did bring our message to Canadian provincial politicians, municipal politicians, and to representatives of the Government of Canada. We also forged relationships with environmentalists and trade unionists in the United States, and with other Canadian trade unionists and environmentalists. As we continue to advocate for effective climate change policies and green job strategies, these relationships will prove valuable.
It was a pleasure to work with people who believe that economic activity can and should be regulated in a way that both protects our climate and provides good jobs for all. It is that commonality of thought, and a shared belief that both goals can be achieved, that binds the alliance together and forms the foundation of a new partnership.
We have a lot of work to do. We have to hold governments accountable when they fail to act, and we have to acknowledge them when they do. We have to advocate effective policies, and we have to raise awareness of both the importance of addressing the issues and of the solutions we propose.
I think both trade unionists and environmentalists will be more effective in doing so if they can do it together.
Let's keep the Blue Green Movement moving!
But still, I could not not help but be moved by the number of environmental and trade union activists that showed up in Copenhagen. And I could not help feeling that a new emerging alliance between the labour and environmental movements has some real potential.
Together we have more credibility and a stronger voice that we do individually.
We did bring our message to Canadian provincial politicians, municipal politicians, and to representatives of the Government of Canada. We also forged relationships with environmentalists and trade unionists in the United States, and with other Canadian trade unionists and environmentalists. As we continue to advocate for effective climate change policies and green job strategies, these relationships will prove valuable.
It was a pleasure to work with people who believe that economic activity can and should be regulated in a way that both protects our climate and provides good jobs for all. It is that commonality of thought, and a shared belief that both goals can be achieved, that binds the alliance together and forms the foundation of a new partnership.
We have a lot of work to do. We have to hold governments accountable when they fail to act, and we have to acknowledge them when they do. We have to advocate effective policies, and we have to raise awareness of both the importance of addressing the issues and of the solutions we propose.
I think both trade unionists and environmentalists will be more effective in doing so if they can do it together.
Let's keep the Blue Green Movement moving!
Labour needs to be active on more than "just transition". What about border measures?
Throughout the week in Copenhagen, the International Trade Union Confederation kept all COP 15 participants from the Labour Movement informed about the status of the "just transition" references in the negotiated documents.
Just transition really refers to helping working people adjust to the economic impacts that will accompany any effective climate change policy. Investing in new greener technologies and renewable energy as a tool of job creation; skills training; consultations with unions; and labour adjustment (i.e. employment insurance, social policy, etc.) are all elements of just transition. All is this very important stuff, and trade unions around the world should be advocating for just transition.
But there is more that Labour can speak to. Reports on the substance of the negotiations seem to indicate the stumbling blocks include whether or not emission reduction targets for developing nations are hard targets or a function of economic growth; verification of the progress in meeting any agreed to emissions targets; and funding for developing nations to adapt. These are substantive issues, and they touch on who pays for addressing climate change and whether or not any agreement will be meaningful. Perhaps Labour should be speaking on some of these substantive issues.
For example, consider the issue of different targets for different nations. Each nation has to be mindful of the economic and environmental impacts of agreeing to vastly different domestic targets.
Consider this. If in an attempt to lower green house gasses, Canada, the United States and the EU impose a cap and trade system that effectively puts a price on producing a ton of green house gas emissions - that will drive up the cost of producing a wide variety of products in those participating countries. If large multinational corporations have the option of shifting production to jurisdictions where there is no such cost and are still able to sell into the markets of those countries that did impose the cap and trade system - they will do it. If that happens, there is no meaningful reduction in emissions - only a change in where those emissions occur, and a loss of jobs in the country that tried to reduce its emissions.
Surely any negotiated system of addressing climate change should result in the reduction of global emissions rather than the shifting of carbon emitting industries to justifications with weaker standards.
One way to address this problem is through the use of border measures. If only some nations participate in a cap and trade system, those nations could attempt to measure the impact that the system has on producing trade sensitive goods - say a ton of steel or an automobile. Then if a ton of steel or automobile is produced in a jurisdiction without a comparable system, a duty could be placed on such goods that is equal to the increased production costs arising from the cap and trade system in the importing nation.
Now I can hear all the "protectionism" groans from here. But is the world really better off when the emissions source is simply moved to a new jurisdiction?
Developing nations certainly need assistance to adapt. Some need it much more than others. Some revenue generated from auctioning off allowances and applying border measures might be used to provide additional adaptation assistance to those developing nations that need it most.
Just transition is very important - but the current stumbling blocks to a global agreement touch on issues much broader than that. Perhaps the global trade union movement should advocate a cap and trade system and a system of emissions verification. Such a system might include the right of participating nations to apply border measures to prevent "emissions leaking" to jurisdictions with lower standards. It might also include additional assistance to developing nations that require it.
Blue Green Canada, our alliance between the United Steelworkers and Environmental Defence has advocated a cap and trade system that includes border measures.
Perhaps more trade unions, and more environmentalists, should think about doing the same.
Just a thought
Just transition really refers to helping working people adjust to the economic impacts that will accompany any effective climate change policy. Investing in new greener technologies and renewable energy as a tool of job creation; skills training; consultations with unions; and labour adjustment (i.e. employment insurance, social policy, etc.) are all elements of just transition. All is this very important stuff, and trade unions around the world should be advocating for just transition.
But there is more that Labour can speak to. Reports on the substance of the negotiations seem to indicate the stumbling blocks include whether or not emission reduction targets for developing nations are hard targets or a function of economic growth; verification of the progress in meeting any agreed to emissions targets; and funding for developing nations to adapt. These are substantive issues, and they touch on who pays for addressing climate change and whether or not any agreement will be meaningful. Perhaps Labour should be speaking on some of these substantive issues.
For example, consider the issue of different targets for different nations. Each nation has to be mindful of the economic and environmental impacts of agreeing to vastly different domestic targets.
Consider this. If in an attempt to lower green house gasses, Canada, the United States and the EU impose a cap and trade system that effectively puts a price on producing a ton of green house gas emissions - that will drive up the cost of producing a wide variety of products in those participating countries. If large multinational corporations have the option of shifting production to jurisdictions where there is no such cost and are still able to sell into the markets of those countries that did impose the cap and trade system - they will do it. If that happens, there is no meaningful reduction in emissions - only a change in where those emissions occur, and a loss of jobs in the country that tried to reduce its emissions.
Surely any negotiated system of addressing climate change should result in the reduction of global emissions rather than the shifting of carbon emitting industries to justifications with weaker standards.
One way to address this problem is through the use of border measures. If only some nations participate in a cap and trade system, those nations could attempt to measure the impact that the system has on producing trade sensitive goods - say a ton of steel or an automobile. Then if a ton of steel or automobile is produced in a jurisdiction without a comparable system, a duty could be placed on such goods that is equal to the increased production costs arising from the cap and trade system in the importing nation.
Now I can hear all the "protectionism" groans from here. But is the world really better off when the emissions source is simply moved to a new jurisdiction?
Developing nations certainly need assistance to adapt. Some need it much more than others. Some revenue generated from auctioning off allowances and applying border measures might be used to provide additional adaptation assistance to those developing nations that need it most.
Just transition is very important - but the current stumbling blocks to a global agreement touch on issues much broader than that. Perhaps the global trade union movement should advocate a cap and trade system and a system of emissions verification. Such a system might include the right of participating nations to apply border measures to prevent "emissions leaking" to jurisdictions with lower standards. It might also include additional assistance to developing nations that require it.
Blue Green Canada, our alliance between the United Steelworkers and Environmental Defence has advocated a cap and trade system that includes border measures.
Perhaps more trade unions, and more environmentalists, should think about doing the same.
Just a thought
Friday, December 18, 2009
Where to find hope in Copenhagen
The media are playing around with the conference slogan Hopenhagen, now calling it Nopenhagen. This might be the final word after all because last night a deal to keep warming to 2% Celsius, with 100 billion dollars for developing countries, died by morning.
The coverage of the protests about inaction in Copenhagen has been extensive, but, it isn’t only about protests and police action here outside the negotiations. Where you find Hopenhagen is in learning about initiatives coming out of lower levels of government, from the labour movement and non-governmental organizations. The World of Work Pavilion organized by the ITUC and LO-Denmark has showcased the work of unions around the world to address climate change, making it clear that the movement for green jobs, for transforming industrial practices to reduce emissions, for a just and equitable transition to a green economy is gaining strength globally.
The hope was high last night at the labour – environment event sponsored by Blue Green Canada and Blue Green Alliance. The Honourable Sterling Belliveau, Minister of Environment for Nova Scotia, attended to receive the Blue Green Canada Emerging Leader in Green Energy award. Nova Scotia has legislated a reduction in provincial greenhouse gas emissions to 10% below 1990 levels by 2020, with a target set at 25% renewable generation by 2015. A new initiative, the Fundy Tidal Power Project, will produce energy out of the 100 billion tonnes of water that flows in and out of the Bay of Fundy four times each day and help the province meet this renewable target. Green energy and more green jobs are in Nova Scotia’s future.
When Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of US Representatives, arrived with congressional leaders Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, co-sponsors of the Waxman-Markey Bill on climate and energy which is now known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, they brought a message of purpose and solidarity with everyone in the room. With Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s announcement earlier in the day of US support for a $100 billion a year fund for poor countries to fight global warming, Pelosi, Waxman and Markey spoke as leaders working hard to develop and support solutions at the domestic and international level.
As the final day of the negotiations opens, President Barack Obama’s arrival is being touted as the last opportunity to break the impasse between nations. Expectations are uneasy as to how these talks will wind up, at this point few dare to hope that they will be the success we need.
The coverage of the protests about inaction in Copenhagen has been extensive, but, it isn’t only about protests and police action here outside the negotiations. Where you find Hopenhagen is in learning about initiatives coming out of lower levels of government, from the labour movement and non-governmental organizations. The World of Work Pavilion organized by the ITUC and LO-Denmark has showcased the work of unions around the world to address climate change, making it clear that the movement for green jobs, for transforming industrial practices to reduce emissions, for a just and equitable transition to a green economy is gaining strength globally.
The hope was high last night at the labour – environment event sponsored by Blue Green Canada and Blue Green Alliance. The Honourable Sterling Belliveau, Minister of Environment for Nova Scotia, attended to receive the Blue Green Canada Emerging Leader in Green Energy award. Nova Scotia has legislated a reduction in provincial greenhouse gas emissions to 10% below 1990 levels by 2020, with a target set at 25% renewable generation by 2015. A new initiative, the Fundy Tidal Power Project, will produce energy out of the 100 billion tonnes of water that flows in and out of the Bay of Fundy four times each day and help the province meet this renewable target. Green energy and more green jobs are in Nova Scotia’s future.
When Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of US Representatives, arrived with congressional leaders Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, co-sponsors of the Waxman-Markey Bill on climate and energy which is now known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, they brought a message of purpose and solidarity with everyone in the room. With Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s announcement earlier in the day of US support for a $100 billion a year fund for poor countries to fight global warming, Pelosi, Waxman and Markey spoke as leaders working hard to develop and support solutions at the domestic and international level.
As the final day of the negotiations opens, President Barack Obama’s arrival is being touted as the last opportunity to break the impasse between nations. Expectations are uneasy as to how these talks will wind up, at this point few dare to hope that they will be the success we need.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Deal or no deal - Canada should be addressing climate change
There are plenty of rumours about the climate change talks here in Copenhagen. Some suggest the talks are moving, some suggest the talks are stalled. The issues are complex and reaching a deal is certainly challenging. What kind of cap will apply to developing nations? What kind of financial support will those nations get from the developed nations to adapt? How will compliance be verified?
Yes these are challenging issues and today I don't know if there will be an agreement in this round of talks or not. But as I contemplate the various rumours I hear, I am bothered by another question. Why has our federal government not shown more leadership on this issue already - before these talks even got started. Not all climate change action requires international consensus.
Ontario has its Green Energy Act providing a feed in tariff for wind and solar, and it included a local procurement provision to help create jobs. Nova Scotia has put forth an ambitious plan to reduce green house gases and is investing in tidal power. Quebec has acted, and so has Manitoba. Some great things have happened at the municipal level as well.
So why has Canada's federal government failed to act? You don't need a deal here in Copenhagen in order to assist municipalities in a dramatic expansion of public transit. You don't need an international cap and trade system in order to provide significant improvements to the electrical grid, therefore making it easier to bring more renewable energy on stream.
Don't get me wrong - we all need an international agreement that addresses climate change and there is no time like the present. I came here with the same hope that all the other NGO observers have. But as we hear rumours about challenging negotiations, as we count all the "fossil awards" that Canada is getting from one NGO because it is not showing leadership on climate change, and as we consider what some Canadian provinces and municipalities have done - I just can't help but wonder why it is that our federal government did not do more before it even got here.
Yes these are challenging issues and today I don't know if there will be an agreement in this round of talks or not. But as I contemplate the various rumours I hear, I am bothered by another question. Why has our federal government not shown more leadership on this issue already - before these talks even got started. Not all climate change action requires international consensus.
Ontario has its Green Energy Act providing a feed in tariff for wind and solar, and it included a local procurement provision to help create jobs. Nova Scotia has put forth an ambitious plan to reduce green house gases and is investing in tidal power. Quebec has acted, and so has Manitoba. Some great things have happened at the municipal level as well.
So why has Canada's federal government failed to act? You don't need a deal here in Copenhagen in order to assist municipalities in a dramatic expansion of public transit. You don't need an international cap and trade system in order to provide significant improvements to the electrical grid, therefore making it easier to bring more renewable energy on stream.
Don't get me wrong - we all need an international agreement that addresses climate change and there is no time like the present. I came here with the same hope that all the other NGO observers have. But as we hear rumours about challenging negotiations, as we count all the "fossil awards" that Canada is getting from one NGO because it is not showing leadership on climate change, and as we consider what some Canadian provinces and municipalities have done - I just can't help but wonder why it is that our federal government did not do more before it even got here.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(Atom)
