Having my eyes opened to the profiteering activities of different countries disguised as mitigations to climate change, I would like to share the little knowledge I have on exposing the capitalistalistic truth behind developed countries' so-called environmentalist aims.
Let's start with some bits of background information, although some might say what follows is an acronym overload. Ready? The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 . It serves as the ultimate source of objective information on the causes and effects of climate change and possible adaptation and mitigation measures that can be used to respond to it. Consequently, the IPCC impelled the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio. Its main objective, in straightforward terms, is to stabilize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to mitigate climate change. This stabilized level of GHG emissions is time-critical to allow adaptation to climate change which also allows for sustainable economic development.
Realistically, the UNFCCC also recognizes that the developed countries should take more responsibility in mitigating climate change since they have been and continue to be the primary source of GHG emissions. It also takes into account the specific needs of developing countries and their potential increase of GHG emissions in the future. However, it also states that "...policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost."
Next we have the Kyoto Protocol, the first addition to the UNFCC, which was adopted unanimously in 1997. It basically requires all Annex I parties (developed countries) to meet their GHG emission reduction commitments (they are given pollution caps and reduction percentages based on their GHG emission trends). And here, ladies and gentlemen, is where the twist begins. The Kyoto Protocol offers these Annex I parties the flexibility in meeting the above-mentioned commitments. There are three market-based flexibility mechanisms in place: 1) the Clean Development Mechanism or CDM, 2) Emissions Trading, and 3) Joint Implementation.
In light of an article forwarded to me called "The Great Carbon Credit Con: Why are we paying the Third World to poison its environment?" by Nadene Ghouri, I will highlight some of its valuable insights to share with you the loopholes of one of the flexibility mechanisms: the carbon emissions trading scheme. The other two mechanisms will not be expounded in here for my own pessismistic reasons which you'll find out soon enough.
Ghouri's article gives us a good idea of what actions are being made to mitigate climate change by those who originally and continue to perpetuate it. She wrote about a giant chemicals factory in Gujarat, India which produces refrigerant gases for air-conditioning units and fridges. Despite the evident land and water pollution and health issues which started when the factory was built and concurred by independent investigations, Gujarat Fluorochemicals (GFL); under the UN carbon emissions trading scheme, tripled its earnings. This was because of a technology Ineos, UK's largest chemical and oil corporation, developed which captured and recycled HFC23 and hence claimed its factory to be "green." However, HFC23 is one of the most dangerous GHGs in terms of global warming. One ton of HFC23 is equivalent to 11,700 tons of carbon. And yet GFL and Ineos benefitted from this with huge sums of money while the neighboring village farmers are left with polluted land, water and unnamed illnesses. As if things could not get any worse, these farmers are "low-caste dalits" (or untouchables) and they are too poor to access proper medical care.
There is something terribly wrong in this story. Of all the treaties, protocols, conventions, panels created to mitigate and adapt to climate change, it seems like capitalism is getting the best of environmentalism. Whatever efforts, even if done with good intention, all boil down to profit and never for the real reason: to resolve this environmental crisis. Corporations like GFL are manipulating the vulnerable system, claim themselves to be helping the environment when in reality, they are buying their way out of the mess they made and are even making more money out of thrashing the environment at the expense of those who least contributed to this environmental crisis - those who are ironically paying the consequences for it.
Are things really that hopeless for us? In a carbon-trading scheme worth £80B worldwide last year and is projected to grow up to £97B next year, where traders are selling the planet's future in terms of credits; what has our world become? Kevin Smith from Carbon Trade Watch, said, "nature doesn't do bail outs." When will we start real and meaningful action before it's too late?I fear for what is to come.
References:
1. http://www.ipcc.ch
2. http://cdmdna.emb.gov.ph
3. http://unfccc.int
4. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1188937/The-great-carbon-credit-eco-companies-causing-pollution.html
Let's start with some bits of background information, although some might say what follows is an acronym overload. Ready? The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 . It serves as the ultimate source of objective information on the causes and effects of climate change and possible adaptation and mitigation measures that can be used to respond to it. Consequently, the IPCC impelled the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio. Its main objective, in straightforward terms, is to stabilize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to mitigate climate change. This stabilized level of GHG emissions is time-critical to allow adaptation to climate change which also allows for sustainable economic development.
Realistically, the UNFCCC also recognizes that the developed countries should take more responsibility in mitigating climate change since they have been and continue to be the primary source of GHG emissions. It also takes into account the specific needs of developing countries and their potential increase of GHG emissions in the future. However, it also states that "...policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost."
Next we have the Kyoto Protocol, the first addition to the UNFCC, which was adopted unanimously in 1997. It basically requires all Annex I parties (developed countries) to meet their GHG emission reduction commitments (they are given pollution caps and reduction percentages based on their GHG emission trends). And here, ladies and gentlemen, is where the twist begins. The Kyoto Protocol offers these Annex I parties the flexibility in meeting the above-mentioned commitments. There are three market-based flexibility mechanisms in place: 1) the Clean Development Mechanism or CDM, 2) Emissions Trading, and 3) Joint Implementation.
In light of an article forwarded to me called "The Great Carbon Credit Con: Why are we paying the Third World to poison its environment?" by Nadene Ghouri, I will highlight some of its valuable insights to share with you the loopholes of one of the flexibility mechanisms: the carbon emissions trading scheme. The other two mechanisms will not be expounded in here for my own pessismistic reasons which you'll find out soon enough.
Ghouri's article gives us a good idea of what actions are being made to mitigate climate change by those who originally and continue to perpetuate it. She wrote about a giant chemicals factory in Gujarat, India which produces refrigerant gases for air-conditioning units and fridges. Despite the evident land and water pollution and health issues which started when the factory was built and concurred by independent investigations, Gujarat Fluorochemicals (GFL); under the UN carbon emissions trading scheme, tripled its earnings. This was because of a technology Ineos, UK's largest chemical and oil corporation, developed which captured and recycled HFC23 and hence claimed its factory to be "green." However, HFC23 is one of the most dangerous GHGs in terms of global warming. One ton of HFC23 is equivalent to 11,700 tons of carbon. And yet GFL and Ineos benefitted from this with huge sums of money while the neighboring village farmers are left with polluted land, water and unnamed illnesses. As if things could not get any worse, these farmers are "low-caste dalits" (or untouchables) and they are too poor to access proper medical care.
There is something terribly wrong in this story. Of all the treaties, protocols, conventions, panels created to mitigate and adapt to climate change, it seems like capitalism is getting the best of environmentalism. Whatever efforts, even if done with good intention, all boil down to profit and never for the real reason: to resolve this environmental crisis. Corporations like GFL are manipulating the vulnerable system, claim themselves to be helping the environment when in reality, they are buying their way out of the mess they made and are even making more money out of thrashing the environment at the expense of those who least contributed to this environmental crisis - those who are ironically paying the consequences for it.
Are things really that hopeless for us? In a carbon-trading scheme worth £80B worldwide last year and is projected to grow up to £97B next year, where traders are selling the planet's future in terms of credits; what has our world become? Kevin Smith from Carbon Trade Watch, said, "nature doesn't do bail outs." When will we start real and meaningful action before it's too late?I fear for what is to come.
References:
1. http://www.ipcc.ch
2. http://cdmdna.emb.gov.ph
3. http://unfccc.int
4. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1188937/The-great-carbon-credit-eco-companies-causing-pollution.html
No comments:
Post a Comment