Hiroshima Peace Declaration on 81st anniversary of atomic bombing [Full
Text]
-
The following is the full text of the Peace Declaration read on Aug. 6 by
Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui at a ceremony to mark 81 years since the 1945
ato...
Latest Post
Showing posts with label climate justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate justice. Show all posts
Anthropocentric nation state parochialism and faceless donors remain a hurdle for climate justice
Written By mediavigil on Monday, November 15, 2021 | 7:36 PM
Anthropocentric parochialism of homo economicus, the body corporates and the frozen Westphalian nation state framework continue to envelop all efforts to combat climate crisis. The deal arrived at the 26th conference of the Parties to UNFCCC-United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP26) during its closing plenary session in Glasgow on November 13, 2021 (local time) had been accepted by some 200 nations who are parties to the convention. The dilution of the language of the legal text through replacement of "phase out" of coal power with “phase down” of coal power, the single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions revealed the complicity of the 37 countries which had failed to comply with their obligations under the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol that ended in December 2020. The outcome of COP26 is available at:https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/conferences/glasgow-climate-change-conference-october-november-2021/outcomes-of-the-glasgow-climate-change-conference
These countries appear to be acting as mouth pieces of their corporations who remain callous towards the goal to limit warming to 1.5°C (since pre-industrial times). It is apparent that India was used by the corporations of these countries to weaken the final agreement. These corporations are anonymous donors of ruling parties in India. Such immoral and unethical anonymous financing faces challenge in the Supreme Court of India. Anonymous funding of political parties is the modern version of the rotten or pocket borough, also known as a nomination borough or proprietorial borough used by donors to gain unrepresentative influence. These corporations have inherited such practices from UK, Ireland and USA. The dissenting order of Justice John Paul Stevens in
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission had warned that the majority ruling of the Supreme Court of USA will “undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation.” He contended that the majority order overestimated the notion of corporate democracy and the powers of shareholders to vote and bring derivative suits against corporate officers. He wrote, “The Court’s blinkered and aphoristic approach....will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the States to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination". Stevens’s opinion was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor.
Although the court wished that citizens should see whether elected officials are “ in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests”, the donors of “dark money” have overwhelmed the capacity of socio-political organizations, public institutions and the citizens.
In India, illegitimate "dark money" of anonymous donors has been "legalised" through amendments in the Companies Act, 2013.
These donors have been using one country or another to block action against the climate crisis. Now it is out in open.
It may be recalled that it was under the influence of US corporations that carbon trade was included in the Kyoto Protocol in order to appease USA to ratify the treaty but it took EU and others for a ride by withdrawing from it after getting the Protocol diluted. Carbon trade is a fake market solution for climate crisis. The 11 page long
In such a backdrop, it is not surprising that U.S. climate envoy observes, "It’s a good deal for the world" unmindful of the fact that world has warmed 1.1°C compared to pre-industrial times.
COP-26 failed to get pledges for cutting GHG emissions in half by 2030. It failed to get $100 billion in financial aid to poor nations to deal with the unfolding planetary crisis. It failed to get bring the issue of emissions from military industry in general and nuclear industry in particular under the ambit of UNFCCC to combat climate crisis.
Unless civilisational alliances are forged beyond static Westphalian nation state framework recognising the rights of mother earth and undemocratic body corporates are made subservient to truly democratic will drawing on deeper philosophical insights, there can be no solution to climate crisis.
Gopal Krishna
__
The author is a law and public policy researcher who has been tracking and critiquing climate negotiations since 1999.
Testimony at "The People’s Health Hearing: Health Justice means Climate Justice"
Written By mediavigil on Saturday, November 06, 2021 | 6:00 AM
ToxicsWatch gave it's testimony at "The People’s Health Hearing: Health Justice means Climate Justice". The hearing is part of People's Summit for Climate Justice organised by UK based #COP26 Coalition on 7th November. There was testimony by Patricia Miranda, Celestine, Paul Belisario, Raki, 
Baijayanta Mukhopadhyay and Rhiannon Osborne moderated the public hearing.
Mafel and Minda as well. Ben Eder, Abi Deivanayagam and his colleagues from the coalition co-organised it.
Gopal Krishna of ToxicsWatch observed that deafening silence on fake solutions for climate "crisis" is indefensible, inexcusable, unpardonable, unethical and immoral. The carbon trade is fraudulent. It is a fake solution to the crisis. The public hearing was held in the backdrop of UK hosting the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties to UNFCCC (COP26) in Glasgow. The conference commenced on 31 October and concludes on 12 November.
Having failed in complying with commitments under Kyoto Protocol 2005-2020, the 26th Conference of Parties (COP-26) of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), effective from 1994 has brought parties to UNFCCC together to accelerate action towards the goals of the Paris Agreement effective from 2016 under the UNFCCC in order to combat climate crisis. UNFCCC adopted in 1992 has 197 parties but 165 signatories.
The Paris Agreement was adopted by 196 Parties at COP 21 in Paris, on 12 December 2015. It entered into force on 4 November 2016. The fact remains that it commenced in 2021 only after the end of the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol in 2020. At present, there are 193 parties to the Paris Agreement.
The Agreement's goal is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels.
To achieve the long-term temperature goal, countries aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions to achieve a climate neutral world by 2050. These aims are akin to aiming for the sky but not reaching even the mountains.
Given the fact that Paris Agreement works on a 5- year cycle of climate action carried out by countries, the countries were supposed to submit their plans for climate action known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs) by 2020. 194 parties have submitted their first NDCs. Eritrea is not a party to Paris Agreement but has submitted its first NDC. Only 13 parties have submitted their second NDCs. India submitted its first NDC in October 2016 but it is yet to submit it's updated 2030 targets. It missed the deadline of October 12, 2021.
In their NDCs, countries communicate actions they will take to reduce their Greenhouse Gas emissions in order to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement. Countries also communicate in the NDCs actions they will take to build resilience to adapt to the impacts of rising temperatures. Unless NDCs are made legally binding and makes body corporates directly liable, NDCs will meet the fate of promises made under Kyoto Protocol.
The invitation of the Paris Agreement to formulate and submit by 2020 long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies (LT-LEDS) is just a charitable public relations exercise.
LT-LEDS provide the long-term horizon to the NDCs. Unlike NDCs, they are not mandatory. Some jurists have pointed out for long that international law is no law, the experience with mandatory Kyoto Protocol vindicates their stance. Paris Agreement and NDCs under it are weaker than commitments under Kyoto Protocol.
The Paris Agreement provides a framework for financial, technical and capacity building support to those countries who need it. The Agreement being voluntary in nature, the framework remains an empty shell.
The Paris Agreement reaffirms that developed countries must take the lead in providing financial assistance to countries that are less endowed and more vulnerable. Climate finance is needed for mitigation, because large-scale investments are required to significantly reduce emissions. Climate finance is equally important for adaptation, as significant financial resources are needed to adapt to the adverse effects and reduce the impacts of a changing climate. Unmindful of climate injustice by rich nations at least since 1750, these countries remain trapped in a business as usual mode.
The Paris Agreement has vision for technology development and transfer for both improving resilience to climate change and reducing GHG emissions. It is akin to verbal assurance.
With the Paris Agreement, countries established an enhanced transparency framework (ETF). Under ETF, from 2024, countries are supposed to report transparently on actions taken and progress in climate change mitigation, adaptation measures and support provided or received. It is a post dated cheque.
To achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, the years since its entry into force countries, regions, and cities are establishing carbon neutrality targets. The firms are doing so as part of their corporate social responsibility and for ethical positioning of their brands. Zero-carbon solutions has entered the imagination of economic sectors. But ground reality reveals gulf between fertile imagination, pious intention and implementation.
The poverty of imagination displayed by heads of nation states and corporations in the aftermath of the publication of study of first working group as part of Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that has provided assessment of scientific, technical, and socio-economic information concerning climate crisis, is disconcerting. The study titled "Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis" released on 9 August 2021 states that the only way to avoid warming of 1.5 °C or 2 °C is to undertake radical cuts (of upto 50 ℅ by 2030 and 100 ℅ by 2050) in greenhouse gas emissions to prevent irreversible climate disruption. Global temperature is expected to peak at 1.6°C during 2041-2060.
The public hearing engaged with the memory of communities, and nature to confront inequality and injustice.
USA should ratify Doha Amendment to Kyoto Protocol for pre-2020, $500 million to Green Climate Fund (GCF) for post-2020 not enough
Written By mediavigil on Wednesday, January 18, 2017 | 2:04 AM
USA should ratify
Doha Amendment to Kyoto Protocol for pre-2020, $500 million to Green
Climate Fund (GCF) for post-2020 not enough
Ratification of
mandatory Doha Amendment for pre 2020 period is a logical necessity, voluntary
Paris Agreement is just a post dated cheque
New Delhi: Towards
the fag end of his tenure and ahead of the next Conference of
the Parties (COP 23) to Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in November, 2017 in
Germany,
US President Barack Obama has transferred $500 million to the Green Climate
Fund (GCF), a small mechanism for climate change adaptation and renewable
energy projects in the Global South. This step is significant given the fact
that incoming President Donald Trump has promised to defund international
climate action.
Countries which
are genuinely committed to preventing climate crisis should join efforts to
ensure that nuclear power is kept out of the $ 100 billion/year Green Climate
Fund (GCF), a very small player in climate finance established five years ago
in Cancun, Mexico. After getting funds from the US President, GCF should be
made to create an accountability mechanism and persuaded to adopt an
information disclosure policy.
The fact remains
that Kyoto Protocol is the only international treaty on climate till 2020
attempts to implement the objective of the UNFCCC to fight global warming by
reducing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to "a level that
would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system"
(Art. 2). The Protocol is based on the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities: it puts the obligation to reduce current emissions on
developed countries on the basis that they are historically responsible for the
current levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The Protocol’s first
commitment period started in 2008 and ended in 2012. A second commitment period was agreed on in
2012, known as the Doha Amendment to the protocol for post 2012 period. It is
noteworthy that submit that USA has neither ratified the first commitment
period nor the second commitment period of the Protocol.
But the pre-2020
climate treaty has not come into force as yet. For pre-2020 period, out of 144
states whose ratification needed for its entry into force, so far only 75
countries have ratified Doha Amendment to Kyoto Protocol. Out of 37 the
countries with binding commitments, only 7 have ratified. This demonstrates the
sincerity towards climate action. USA remains a non-party to Kyoto Protocol of
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which was
adopted in May, 1992. Neither Doha Amendment to the
Kyoto Protocol or Paris Agreement guarantee the safety of the world's most
vulnerable but former is better than the latter for it makes provision for binding commitments and unlike the latter.
Kyoto Protocol succeeded in adopting precautionary approach but the Paris
Agreement fails because it does not satisfy the provisions of Article 3.3 of
UNFCCC. It reads: “The Parties should take precautionary measures to
anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its
adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage,
lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing
such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with
climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the
lowest possible cost. To achieve this, such policies and measures should take
into account different socio-economic contexts, be comprehensive, cover all
relevant sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and adaptation, and
comprise all economic sectors. Efforts to address climate change may be carried
out cooperatively by interested Parties.”
Civil society groups failed to support a small country
like Nicaragua in the Paris Climate Conference which raised its flag
questioning the autocratic change introduced in the final draft at the last
moment (from ‘shall’ to ‘should’) while adopting the 12 page long Paris
Agreement dated 12th December, 2015. The Agreement being a legal text required
application of basic legal knowledge by negotiators from India. In law schools
across the globe students are taught that “shall” is “mandatory”. The drafters
of legal documents are trained into the use of “shall” as it conveys “a duty
to” be performed. It conveys obligation.
Had “shall” been not important 76 pages of Words and
Phrases, a multi volume work of legal definitions would not have been devoted
to case laws around it. The word “should” does not express a legal obligation;
the word “shall” expresses a legal requirement.
Initially, Article 4.4 of the Draft Agreement read: “Developed country
Parties shall continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute
emission reduction targets. Developing country Parties should continue
enhancing their mitigation efforts…” This formulation aptly captured the
historic responsibilities of rich countries and differentiated responsibilities
of poorer countries. But disregarding the voice of a Central American country
like Nicaragua which is a member of Group of 77, succumbing to the USA’s demand
shall was substituted with should. India’s decision to maintain a deafening
silence when the voice of a fellow member from G77 was disregarded is contrary
to its stature. India should revise its position at CoP-23.
There was a total failure in comprehending that States have a fundamental
responsibility to preserve resources like the land, water, and air, which
belongs to the future generations. Its responsibility “predates statutory law”.
So far most civil society groups have failed to highlight it.
As chairperson of the Group of 134 developing countries (G77 and China
Group), Nozipho Joyce Mxakato-Diseko revealed that Intended Nationally
Determined Contribution (INDC) for mitigating climate change is “a
perversion of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities”
because it undermines the “legal obligation in accordance with historical
responsibilities for finance” accepted under the bullying influence of
USA and its allies.
It is quite outrageous that INDCs are not legally enforceable. The
paragraph 52 of the Decision of CoP 21 makes a categorical declaration that
Article 8 of the Paris Agreement which deals with the issue of addressing loss
and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change “does not
involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation.”
Although such announcement sets a regressive precedent in international
negotiations, given the fact Paris Agreement is not legally binding by
implication, this attempt to escape liability for loss and damage appears
unsuccessful. The 12 page long Paris Agreement dated 12th December, 2015
adopted by the countries that are Parties to UNFCCC, is an articulation of how
‘climate-inequality’ shapes the text of an international treaty supposedly
aimed at climate justice and for the protection of Mother Earth.
It may be recalled that the false solution of carbon trade and off setting
was introduced in the Kyoto Protocol at the behest of USA which had made it a
pre-condition to sign the Protocol. Notably, after diluting the Protocol USA
unsigned the Protocol. Unmindful of the fraud and corruption ridden carbon
trade projects, instead of discarding this fake remedy the Paris Agreement
makes way for global carbon market through Article 6 of the Agreement. It makes
space for “voluntary contribution” among countries in the implementation of
their emission reduction targets and “to allow for higher ambition in their
mitigation and adaptation actions”.
It creates a new class of carbon assets namely, “internationally
transferred mitigation outcomes” (ITMOs) for trading and “support for results-
based payments to implement policy approaches”. This new mechanism of UNFCCC
has been incarnated as Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM) as main
mitigation tool in place of pre-existing Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and
Joint Implementation post-2020.
What is charitably referred to as “dangerous anthropogenic interference
with the climate system” in the text of the UNFCCC is in reality an act of
industrial warfare against climate and its allied ecosystem whose impact has
become glaring. It is quite surprising that green house gas emissions from the
war industry which is reaping unprecedented profits amidst conflicts around
natural resources has not been included as one of the key sources of climate
crisis.
It is apparent that world governments have adopted Ostrich policy with
regard to climate crisis under the influence of undemocratic economic
organizations. Richer countries became prosperous and dominant due to carbon
emission since 1750. Between 1850 and 2011, USA, European Union, Russian
Federation, Japan and others contributed over 2/3rd of total global emissions.
Notably, developed countries have been outsourcing their carbon-intensive
industries to developing countries like India.
Admittedly, the estimated aggregate greenhouse gas emission levels in 2025
and 2030 resulting from INDCs do not fall within least –cost 2 degree C but
rather lead to a projected level of 55 gigatons in 2030. The Decision
underlines that in order to hold the increase in global average temperature to
below 2 degree C above pre-industrial levels there is a need for reduction of
emissions to 40 gigatons.
It is quite bizarre that while almost all the countries have stated their
commitments to reduce emissions from 1990 levels, USA has decided to count its
reduction in emission using 2005 as the base year. Thus, its commitment of
reduction is only 14% instead of 28% as has been claimed quite deceptively.
It has been estimated that India’s current per capita income is close US’s
per capita income in the 1890s. Like most developed countries where coal
remains unavoidable, India continues to argue that it will continue to use coal
as its primary source in its energy mix. Meanwhile, in a remarkable move, the share
of renewables in India has increased over 6 times between 2002 and 2015. India
has also announced that it will add 175 GW of renewable energy capacity (almost
equal to the total installed power generation of Germany) by 2022. This will
lead to avoidance of burning over 300 million tonnes of coal.
India cannot afford to be complacent citing emissions by top polluters
given the fact emissions of top 10 % of urban Indians is about 27 times the
emissions of the bottom 10 % of rural India that the carbon footprint of 1 % of
the India’s wealthy class is being veiled by 823 million poor class of the
country. Saving climate from poisonous market interference
Paris Agreement panders to the whims and fancies of commercial czars who
are obstinately commodifying and monetizing nature and interfering with climate
and allied ecosystems. The natural resource dependent communities are facing
unprecedented deprivation. This has created an episteme that blindly bulldozes
technical and market solutions as “real” solutions. Meanwhile, World Bank Group
feigned wished “to see the extent and detail on carbon markets” included in the
Paris Agreement that paves the way for “Carbon Markets 2.0”.
A new, non-market, climate finance mechanism is needed to support the
formalization and expansion of mitigation and technology transfer as a genuine
solution to combat the propensity of promoting free trade in carbon at the cost
of climate system. Climate talks remain relevant because fate of the
communities and global order is linked to the decision by the richest countries
to undergo mandatory fossil fuel de-addiction. But the Agreement fails to make
top polluters liable for “dangerous anthropogenic interference” and for endangering
human ecosystem which is the substratum for the existence of living beings.
In effect, despite the brave effort of a G77 country, Paris conference
failed to save climate and intra-generational and inter-generational equity
from the banks and markets that threaten our planet by integrating carbon
pricing policies in all sectors of economy. It failed to make ratification of
Doha amendment 2012 to Kyoto Protocol, 1997 developed under the UNFCCC’s
charter covering 2012-2020 time span a priority.
In such a scenario, even at this late stage India should take ethical
leadership by declaring carbon trading as a fake solution and by choosing not
“to pursue the reckless and environmentally harmful path to development” that
the developed countries have taken so far. It should have sought early
ratification of the Doha Amendment to the Protocol which is the international
law till 2020. But this law has not entered into force as yet. This exposes the
hollowness of the claims about leading “nearly 200 nations to the most
ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change” made by President
Barack Obama in his last State of the Union address in front of the US
Congress. The failure to apply “public trust doctrine” for safeguarding climate
system is quite evident.
India must
combat the propaganda of developed countries which have unleashed an
information war to submerge the primacy of Doha Amendment, the only existing
international climate treaty at least till 2020.
There is a
logical compulsion to undertake climate action to prevent irreversible global
changes in the pre-2020 and post-2020 period. India must explore the remedial
nature of the proposed solutions for combating climate crisis instead of
falling into the tarp of false solutions.
Ahead of the next Conference of the Parties (COP 23) from 6 to 17 November,
2017 in Bonn, Germany, under the Presidency of Fiji, India and other affected
countries should take recourse to “long memories” to mobilize G-77 countries to
put limits on ungovernable national and transnational business enterprises by
adopting principles that account for the imminent danger to the very substratum
of human existence.
It is evident that the dominant economic and political
ideology has constrained the actions needed to strengthen the provisions on
mitigation and in dealing with the impacts of climate crisis. Most donor driven
civil society groups and a section of media appear complicit with this
ideology. As a consequence almost all visible climate-related activities end up
being hand in glove with status quo that prefers to remain tight-lipped about Doha Amendment, carbon trade and false climate
solutions.
There is a
logical compulsion to seek ratification of mandatory Doha Amendment for the pre
2020 period in right earnest, voluntary Paris Agreement is just a post dated
cheque.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance
(TWA), Mb: 9818089660, 08227816731, E-mail: 1715krishna@gmail.com,
Web: www.toxicswatch.org
Draft Paris Agreement, CLIMATE JUSTICE & historical debt
Written By mediavigil on Tuesday, December 08, 2015 | 11:55 PM
Draft Paris Agreement and the submissions by top polluters who also happen to be top profit makers reveal that arrangements have not been made to make top polluters pay the “ecological debt” that global north owes to the south.
Some 23 years after the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC) and 18 years after the Kyoto Protocol,
over 160 countries have communicated voluntary Intended Nationally Determined Contribution
(INDC) for the period 2021 to 2030 for combating climate crisis. Demanding
‘fair share’ of world’s resources, insisting on common but differentiated
responsibilities (CBDR) to end climate inequality, Indian Government too has
communicated its 38 page long INDC. Its INDC is “contingent upon an ambitious
global agreement including additional means of implementation to be provided by
developed country parties, technology transfer and capacity building following
Article 3.1 and 4.7” of the UNFCCC.
While it is true that “both in terms of cumulative global
emissions (only 3%) and per capita emission (1.56 tCO 2 e in 2010), India’s
contribution to the problem of climate change is limited”, the fact is that
‘Make in India’ kind of initiative paves the for transfer of hazardous and
polluting industries to India. Although it has officially taken note of
“consumption-based or imported emissions”, India’s INDC fails to stop transfer
of industries that emit Green House Gases (GHGs). Amit Narang, Counsellor, Permanent
Mission of India to UN noted it in New York while delivering his remarks on
“The rich are from Mars, the poor are from Venus: Tackling climate inequality
for a sustainable world” on 21st November, 2015.
The ultimate objective of UNFCCC and any related legal
instruments is that the Conference of the Parties (COP) may adopt is to
achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention,
stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level
that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
system. UNFCCC’s text refers to “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the
climate system” which in reality is an act of industrial warfare against
climate and its allied ecosystem whose impact has become glaring. Its continued
relevance for the communities of shared fate and global order is linked to the
decision by the richest countries to undergo mandatory de-addiction.
Notably, industrialized countries have committed to
implementing quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020. But the INDCs
of the top polluters- China, USA and EU including India aren’t significant enough
to deal with climate crisis from 2020 onwards. Such announcements by the top
polluters are far from what is required based on scientific evidence in order
to limit global temperature rise by 2°C.
There was a need to cut emissions to the tune of 70 %
below 2010 levels by 2050 to be on the path of limiting 2°C temperature
increase.
The 21st Conference of the Parties to the
UNFCCC (COP21) aims to achieve a new international agreement on the climate,
applicable to all countries, with the aim of keeping global warming below 2°C. But by now it is quite clear that INDCs submitted by the key countries
aren’t sufficient to meet the 2OC target.
The 2015 agreement will only come into effect and be
implemented from 2020. The Doha Amendment covers the pre - 2020 period, which
is critical in the overall mitigation effort to hold the increase in global
average temperature below 2° C above pre- industrial levels. The agreement will have any purposeful meaning only if it can subordinate commercial contracts to international law, the Paris
