Carbon Credits, Biofuels, GE Trees, Oh My!

["Mad" Miles]

From: Orin Langelle <[email protected]>
Subject: [Frankentrees] UNFCCC Fiddles While the Earth Burns
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 14:23:57 -0500

This is an un-edited version of the article that appears in the February Z Magazine https://zmagsite.zmag.org/curTOC.htm


United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Fiddles
While the Earth Burns

By Anne Petermann
Co-Director, Global Justice Ecology Project

The focus of this year's UNFCCC, held in Nairobi, Kenya was the CDM-the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism-which is in essence designed to enable rich countries to avoid emissions reductions by funding so-called "clean development," or emissions reductions in poor countries.

African lobby groups, headed by Climate Africa, condemned the inaction of industrialized countries stating, "We are concerned that the developed countries are not keen to take drastic action to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions." Adding, "Instead they are singly and collectively increasing their greenhouse gas emissions."

During a side event on avoiding deforestation hosted by the European Union, Ministers and UN representatives spoke at length about the importance of ending logging in native forests as a means to limiting the impacts of global warming. The solution, they concluded, was to create a huge fund to give developing countries incentives to protect their forests, which would be facilitated by assigning standing forests a dollar value for their so-called "ecosystem services".

While the information presented on the importance of standing forests for the climate and biodiversity was extensive, the lack of information on the forces driving deforestation was glaring. The presenters ignored the financial pressures forcing countries to log their forests, leaving the impression that poor countries cut their trees because they have nothing better to do.

There was no mention of structural adjustment conditions imposed by the World Bank and IMF that force poor countries to sell off their natural resources at rock-bottom prices to repay development loans. There was likewise nothing said about the continually escalating demand for wood products from Northern countries, much of which winds up in landfills as disposable packaging, junk mail or advertising.

This side event was emblematic of the overall UNFCCC which emphasized problem-solving through capitalism-namely the creation of funds, and the development of market mechanisms like carbon trading that promise billions in profits while doing nothing to truly address the problem of global warming. The concepts of consumption reduction and lifestyle change were altogether lacking, except when raised by NGOs or Southern countries. Grace Akumu, of Climate Africa likened the North-centric emphasis of the talks to the widely protested negotiations of the World Trade Organization (WTO), "Just like the WTO, rich countries are skewing negotiations in their favor."

Disaster Capitalism
In addition to emphasizing the role of the market in climate strategies, corporate capitalists are seizing on the growing concern about climate change to sell previously controversial projects as "solutions" to global warming. In this way, huge monoculture tree plantations, large-scale production of biofuels, genetically engineered trees and crops, massive hydroelectric projects and nuclear power can be sold to a Northern audience as means to maintain a grossly over-consumptive lifestyle while supposedly making a positive contribution to the fight against global warming.

The unfortunate truth about these projects, however, is that they do little to mitigate climate change, while causing tremendous environmental and social impacts. This fact led the Global Forest Coalition to organize a weekend workshop called Life as Commerce: Indigenous Peoples Seminar on Carbon Trading in Namanga, Kenya on the Tanzanian border during the weekend lull of UNFCCC. The seminar included indigenous representatives from around the world. Some participants gave presentations on the impacts their community has experienced due to carbon trading schemes in an effort to alert other indigenous representatives about the hidden dangers of carbon offset proposals, many of which are geared toward the lands of indigenous peoples.

Back at the UNFCCC in Nairobi following the seminar, a collection of environmental groups held a press conference to condemn the promotion of such "false solutions" to global warming. World Rainforest Movement, Global Justice Ecology Project, Gaia Foundation, STOP Genetically Engineered Trees Campaign, Global Forest Coalition and Large Scale Biofuels Action Network came together to demand real action against climate change and the end to measures that merely relocate the costs of the unsustainable consumption patterns of the North onto poor Southern countries, where indigenous communities pay a particularly high price. "Soya plantations in Latin America and palm oil plantations in Indonesia, being developed for biofuels, are driving deforestation and pushing hundreds of thousands of farmers and indigenous peoples off of their lands. Once again the developing countries of the South are being asked to pay the price for the unsustainable lifestyle of the North," stated Miguel Lovera of Global Forest Coalition.

Ana Filippini, from the International Secretariat of the World Rainforest Movement insisted that by their very nature, the temporary carbon storage of monoculture tree plantations cannot be looked at as a permanent solution; but do, however, cause tremendous impacts including exhaustion of soils and ground water, and displacement of indigenous and rural communities who must be evicted from the land to protect the carbon storage of the trees. "The UNFCCC needs to move away from these complicated and fraudulent carbon trading schemes. It should begin to address seriously the issues of how to phase out fossil fuels and how to stop deforestation," she stated.

Genetically engineered trees and crops, being promoted as a source for biofuels or a component of carbon sink plantations were also opposed. Arguments against genetically engineered plants and trees are many, and include contamination of native forests and conventional agricultural crops with potentially destructive engineered traits. GE trees have the potential to devastate forest ecosystems by contaminating native trees with pollen or seeds engineered to kill insects, resist toxic herbicides or grow faster. "The escape of pollen or seeds from GE trees into native forests would cause severe and totally unpredictable ecological impacts that could impact the ability of forests to store carbon, worsening global warming. They must be banned," insisted Orin Langelle of the STOP GE Trees Campaign.

The fact that genetically engineered trees put the world's forests at risk was highlighted in a sign-on letter written by Global Justice Ecology Project and World Rainforest Movement. The letter was distributed to delegates and media at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and demands a reversal of the 2003 UNFCCC decision that legalized the use of GE trees in carbon sinks under the Kyoto Protocol. The letter demanded that the UNFCCC rescind its decision legalizing use of GE trees in order to put its policies in line with the March 2006 decision of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity which warned of the dangers of genetically engineered trees and urged countries to use a precautionary approach with regard to the technology.

Regarding the biofuel issue, Dr. Andrew Boswell of the UK-based Large Scale Biofuels Action Network pointed out that even if biofuels are produced only with conventional non-genetically engineered components, if produced on a large-scale, they will still not be a helpful alternative to fossil fuels. In 2005 competition for grain led to a 60% increase in grain prices, favoring the use of grain for biofuels and escalating the numbers of people that cannot access enough food. "The amount of grain needed to produce enough biofuel to fill a single SUV tank could feed a person for a year," he stated.

The growing demand for biofuels is also driving the logging and burning of native forests in places like Indonesia, where land is being cleared to make room for plantations of oil-rich palm trees. In addition to displacing communities and driving species to extinction, this deforestation is accelerating climate change. "Fires in Indonesian forests in 1995 released more carbon emissions than the entire European Union that year. Large-scale production of biofuels is clearly not a strategy that is going to benefit the fight against global warming," stated Teresa Anderson of the Gaia Foundation.

But perhaps the most contentious climate change abatement strategy is carbon trading. Modeled after the pollution-trading allowed by the U.S. Clean Air Act and championed by Al Gore during his Vice Presidency, carbon trading enables corporations and governments to avoid reducing greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing carbon credits. These carbon credits can come either from carbon offsetting projects like tree plantations which are established under the guise of "development" in poor countries, or from countries like Russia that have an excess of carbon credits. Because the carbon emission allowances are based on 1990 emission levels, countries like Russia, which saw many of its industries shut down after 1990, have an abundance of excess carbon emission credits which they can sell off to the highest bidder. The theory is that the limited supply of carbon credits being traded will kick in the laws of supply and demand and the market will take over and solve the problem. (For an excellent critique of carbon trading, read the newly released book, Carbon Trading: A Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatisation and Power, written by Larry Lohmann of The Corner House.)*

Ignoring for a moment the insufficient emission reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol which call only for reductions of 5.2% below 1990 levels when climate scientists agree that immediate reductions of at least 60% are needed to avoid climate catastrophe; and ignoring the numerous and substantial carbon reduction verification problems with this market-based strategy, there is the inescapable dilemma that the United States, which is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases (with 6% of the world's populace producing 25% of the global emissions) will not endorse any global warming strategy.

The reliance on the market to cure the climate change problem, which is being promoted especially by the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases, signifies a refusal to take any real, meaningful action to reduce the future impacts of climate change.

When examined in the context of other global campaigns such as the wars to control the last largest oil reserves in the Middle East, the entire effort appears as a farce. It is as though the powers-that-be have decided that maintaining the luxurious lifestyle of the world's richest people is more important than averting the oncoming climate disaster.

The continuing lack of meaningful action by those in power should provide a major wake-up call to people truly concerned about avoiding climate catastrophe.

We cannot continue to put our faith in bodies such as the UN to solve this problem for us. Just as people around the world have risen up against the WTO, massive protests must be organized against the leaders that refuse to take real, meaningful action to stave off climate catastrophe. Otherwise we face a very uncertain future.

Anne Petermann [email protected] is the Co-director of the U.S. based Global Justice Ecology Project https://globaljusticeecology.org Global Justice Ecology Project is a founding member of the Durban Group for Climate Justice.

*The Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, in cooperation with The Corner House and the Durban Group for Climate Justice has recently released its newest issue of Development Dialogue, which is a substantial 350 page book called Carbon Trading: A Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatisation and Power. Copies of the book can be ordered by emailing the Dag Hammaskjöld Foundation Secretariat at [email protected]