Andrew Simms describes the actions which need prioritizing in the global climate change arena if progress is to be just and equitable.
The author is policy director of the new economics foundation, based in London, United Kingdom.
|
Andrew Simms describes the actions which need prioritizing in the global climate change arena if progress is to be just and equitable. The author is policy director of the new economics foundation, based in London, United Kingdom. |
Serious flooding hit parts of Argentina in November 2004, just as thousands converged in Buenos Aires for the tenth annual conference following the United Nations climate convention. Either God or Mother Nature was dropping a big hint. With the Kyoto Protocol now legally binding, the wider battle lines are also more clearly set.
Firstly, it is clear that none of the painfully negotiated international targets for poverty reduction can be met without stopping dangerous climate change, which, for the most vulnerable, is already here.
Secondly, the huge challenge to alter economic development models around the world so that they become both climate proof and climate friendly is apparent.
The new United Kingdom-based initiative of environment and development groups, coordinated by the new economics foundation and the International Institute for Environment and Development, that produced the Up in Smoke report, will re-examine old approaches and could be a model for others to follow.
Thirdly, after twelve years of trying, diplomatic options for persuading a reluctant United States to take part in the international process have been exhausted. Now it is time to use economic pressure allowed within international law and trade rules.
Then we have to ask the question: what price will developing countries demand to participate in a solution to follow the Kyoto Protocol?
Such a solution must be based on a global framework and the assumption that we now live in a fundamentally carbon constrained world economy. Their reluctance to even have this conversation is fuelled by breathtakingly perverse priorities among the rich countries and real injustice.
The US$0.41 billion annual pledge by rich countries to help all poor countries adapt to climate change is less than one third of what the United States spent on advertizing sports utility vehicles (also known as axles of evil) in 2000, and 178 times less than rich countries spent subsidizing their domestic fossil fuel industries annually in the late 1990s. France spent US$748 million alone adapting its health service after the 2003 heatwave.
Our challenge is to agree the right, per capita, equity-based framework to stop climate change. This must work under a precautionary global emissions cap with tradable emissions permits. The longer the delay, the worse the deal for poor countries.
To ensure that resources are available for adaptation now, a full assessment of likely costs in poor countries is needed. We must remember that this is not aid, but the polluter paying the polluted.
Comment
You can comment on this article by visiting the
Tiempo Climate Newswatch Forum.
Further information
Andrew Simms, 3 Jonathan Street, London, SE11 5NH, United
Kingdom. Email: andrew.simms@neweconomics.org.
Web: www.neweconomics.org.
 |
 |