April 2011 - Centre for Civil Society - University of KwaZulu-Natal

For Bolivia’s UN ambassador Pablo Solon, Cancun “does not represent a
step forward, it is a step backwards”, because the non-binding
commitments made to reduce emissions by around 15 percent by 2020
simply cannot stabilize temperature at the “level which is sustainable for
human life and the life of the planet.”
Even greater anger was expressed in civil society, including by Meena
Raman of Malaysia-based Third World Network: “The mitigation paradigm
has changed from one which is legally binding – the Kyoto Protocol with an
aggregate target which is system-based, science based – to one which is
voluntary, a pledge-and-review system.” As El Salvadoran Friends of the
Earth leader Ricardo Navarro lamented, “What is being discussed at the
Moon does not reflect what happens on Earth. The outcome is a
Cancunhagen that we reject.”
Most specialists agree that even if the unambitious Copenhagen and
Cancun promises are kept (a big if), the result will be a cataclysmic 4-5°C
rise in temperature over this century, and if they are not, 7°C is likely.
Even with a rise of 2°C, scientists generally agree, small islands will sink,
Andean and Himalayan glaciers will melt, coastal areas such as much of
Bangladesh and many port cities will drown, and Africa will dry out – or in
some places flood – so much that nine of ten peasants will not survive.
The politicians and officials have been warned of this often enough by
climate scientists, but are beholden to powerful business interests which
are lined up to either promote climate denialism, or to generate nationalversus-national
negotiating blocs destined to fail in their race to gain most
emission rights. As a result, in spite of a bandaid set of agreements, the
distance between negotiators and the masses of people and the planet
grew larger not smaller over the last two weeks.
WikiLeaking climate bribery
To illustrate, smaller governments were “bullied, hustled around, lured
with petty bribes, called names and coerced into accepting the games of
the rich and emerging-rich nations,” says Soumya Dutta of the South Asian
Dialogues on Ecological Democracy. “Many debt-ridden small African
nations are seeing the money that they might get through the scheming
designs of Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation
(REDD), and have capitulated under the attack of this REDD brigade. It’s a
win-win situation, both for the rich nations, as well as for the rich of the
poor nations. The real poor are a burden in any case, to be kept at arms
length - if not further.”
Bribing those Third World governments which in 2009 were the most vocal
critics of Northern climate posturing became common knowledge thanks to
WikiLeaks disclosures of US State Department cables from February 2010.
Last February 11, for example, EU climate action commissioner Connie
Hedegaard told the US that the Alliance of Small Island States “‘could be
our best allies’, given their need for financing.”
A few months earlier, the Maldives helped lead the campaign against low
emissions targets such as those set in the Copenhagen Accord. But its
leaders reversed course, apparently because of a $50 million aid package
arranged by US deputy climate change envoy Jonathan Pershing. According
to a February 23 cable, Pershing met the Maldives’ US ambassador, Abdul
Ghafoor Mohamed, who told him that if ‘tangible assistance’ were given
his country, then other affected countries would realise “the advantages
to be gained by compliance” with Washington’s climate agenda.