DeGrasse Tyson cozy with Pentagon

SUBHEAD:Tyson in partnership “between the public and private sectors“ to promote “innovation” in US military.

By Adam Johnson on 27 July 2016 for AlterNet - 
(http://www.alternet.org/culture/neil-degrasse-tyson-cozy-pentagon)


Image above: Photo of Neil DeGrasse Tyson and yeah…he does this a lot. From (https://zeinshver.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/i-met-neil-degrasse-tyson/).

It was announced Wednesday that Neil deGrasse Tyson, beloved ambassador of science and head of the Hayden Planetarium in New York, will be joining the Pentagon’s “Innovation Board” along with Amazon CEO and multibillionaire Jeff Bezos. The two join a 15-person board that includes Aspen Institute chief executive Walter Isaacson, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and other “private sector leaders.”

The board’s purpose is somewhat vague, described by Defense Secretary Carter as a partnership “between the public and private sectors“ to promote “innovation” at the Defense Department.

The addition of deGrass Tyson is notable due to his status as a public science educator and his vocal criticisms of war. In a 2014 interview with Parade magazine titled "Neil deGrasse Tyson: Why You Will Never Find Scientists Leading Armies Into Battle," deGrasse Tyson mused on the inherent antiwar nature of scientists:

"...when you have a cosmic perspective, when you know how large the universe is and how small we are within it—what Earth looks like from space, how tiny it is in a cosmic void—it’s impossible for you to say, ‘I so don’t like how you think that I’m going to kill you for it.’ You will never find scientists leading armies into battle. You just won’t. Especially not astrophysicists—we see the biggest picture there is."

While deGrasse Tyson certainly is not leading anyone to war, he’s consulting with those who are.

The United States military has active engagements in 80 to 90 countries a day and, in 2015, dropped a total of 23,144 bombs on seven countries. All with the assistance of thousands of scientists.

There’s an added layer of irony that the heir to the legacy of Carl Sagan, whose popular educational television series "Cosmos" deGrasse Tyson rebooted in 2014, is further warming up to the same military system Sagan was arrested for protesting against in 1986 and had frequent public battles with it throughout his career.

AlterNet’s attempts to get comment from deGrasse Tyson were not immediately returned. It is unclear if the position is paid.

The host of "Cosmos" has been criticized before for his blind spot on the militarization of science. In dueling open letters in 2014, science writer John Horgan and UC Santa Barbara professor Patrick McCray asked deGrasse Tyson to clarify his apparent indifference.

He did so in a brief followup exchange with Horgan that climaxed with this bit of circular handwaving:

No scientist working for the government has a job outside of tax-based sources of support—paid by citizens in the service of national policy implemented by a Congress and a President. I can scream at lawmakers without limit, but their duty is to serve their constituents. And so it’s the electorate that I, as a scientist and educator, will always target for my messages.

Seems deGrasse Tyson is now bypassing the electorate and targeting a private consortium of billionaires, ex-spooks and military brass.

The militarization of science is a serious issue and deGrasse Tyson’s position on it deserves far more clarity, doubly so now that he's gone from indifferent to the problem to actively partaking in it.

.

Fight over sham GMO labeling bill

SUBHEAD: Sen. Bernie Sanders has vowed to put a hold on Senate legislation, which could be voted on days after Vermont's law takes effect.

By Lauren McCauley on 29 June @0q6 for Common Dreams -
(http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/06/29/senate-food-fight-erupts-over-sham-gmo-labeling-bill)


Image above: Demonstration in support of labeling all foods with KMO ingredients. From original article.

The pending "compromise" GMO labeling bill has food safety and consumer advocates both in and out of government scrambling to block the legislation, which they warn will destroy popular efforts to label products made with genetically modified (GMO) ingredients.

Sen. Bernie Sanders has vowed to put a hold on the legislation, which would prevent it from coming up for debate unless proponents can muster 60 votes.

The legislation is seen as a direct threat to a GMO labeling law passed in Sanders' home state of Vermont, which is slated to take effect on Friday. Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, also from Vermont, on Tuesday declared his opposition to the legislation.

"Vermont will become the first state in the nation to require GMO labeling," Sanders said in a press statement. "This is a triumph for ordinary Americans over the powerful interests of Monsanto and other multi-national food industry corporations. We cannot allow Vermont’s law to be overturned by bad federal legislation that has just been announced."

Sanders promised to do everything he can to defeat the bi-partisan bill, introduced last week by Senate Agriculture Committee chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and ranking member Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.).

According to reporting by Politico's Helena Bottemiller Evich, cited by Tom Philpott, Roberts and Stabenow have been pushing hard for the full Senate to consider their compromise bill and "have industrial agriculture interests at their backs."

To counter the powerful influence of food industry lobbyists like the Grocery Manufacturers of America and others, more than 70 consumer, food safety, farm, environmental, and religious groups along with several independent food companies sent a joint letter (pdf) to all members of the Senate on Tuesday voicing their strong opposition to the legislation. It reads in part:

The process that created this legislation has been profoundly undemocratic and a violation of basic legislative practice. The bill addresses a critical issue for the American public, yet it was neither subject to a single hearing nor any testimony whatsoever. Rather, the bill’s preemption of the democratically decided-upon labeling laws of several states, and seed laws of numerous states and municipalities, is the result of non-transparent “bargaining” between two senators and industry interest groups.

...We oppose the bill because it is actually a non-labeling bill under the guise of a mandatory labeling bill. It exempts major portions of current and future GMO foods from labeling; it is on its face discriminatory against low income, rural and elderly populations; it is a gross violation of the sovereignty of numerous states around the nation; and it provides no enforcement against those who violate the law.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Monday posted its technical comments (pdf) about the proposed legislation to the Senate Agriculture Committee and the feedback was similarly damning.

According to analysis by the Center for Food Safety (CFS), the FDA notably "red flags the bill’s narrow and ambiguous definition of 'bioengineering,' which 'will likely mean that many foods from [GMO] sources will not be subject to this bill. For instance, oil made from [GMO] soy would not have any genetic material in it. Likewise, starches and purified proteins would not be covered."

The FDA further notes that it "may be difficult" for any GMO food to qualify for labeling under the bill because, as CFS put it, "it would have to be proven that a GMO product’s modification could not be achieved through conventional breeding or be found in nature – something near impossible to determine. This means most GMO foods would not be subject to mandatory labeling under this bill."

This fight has also sharply divided the organic industry, according to Huffington Post journalist Carey Gillam, who reported Wednesday that the Organic Trade Association (OTA), "signed off on the deal despite the fact that many leading organic businesses and groups are aligned with consumers in wanting on-package labeling."

According to Gilliam, the bill could reach the Senate floor as early as next week.

In the meantime, opponents of the bill are encouraging people to contact their senators and urge them to reject the bill or any other "compromise that would restrict states' rights for labeling and result in anything less than clear mandatory on-package labels that state 'contains genetically engineered ingredients.'"


.

COP21 Reaction Summary

SUBHEAD: "This didn’t save the planet but it may have saved the chance of saving the planet.” - Bill McKibbon


By John Foran on 14 December 2015 for Resilience -
(http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-12-14/the-paris-agreement-paper-heroes-widen-the-climate-justice-gap)


Image above: Originally the COP21 sign on the Eiffel Tower read "Paris Climat 2015". That had to be revised Saturday. From (http://www.euronews.com/2015/12/11/cop21-more-time-for-talking/).

[IB Publisher's note: Our governments have failed us. Those pushing growth, consumerism, militarism, capitalism, corporatism (in their retreat from reality) have held back the friends of the Earth fighting Global Warming. The collapse of growth dependent industrailzation is inevitable, but what shape the planet is in when it is finally flushed away is now up to us. If you want an Earth to sustain anything more complex than bacteria you better get crackin'. Nobody but you can make where you are compatible with complex life on Earth.] 

The day after can be a source of regret, or a new beginning.  It all depends on how much we can perceive the importance of events in time, in history, in life itself.

On Saturday, December 12, in Paris, the negotiators at the COP 21 UN climate summit came to a final decision on the text they have been negotiating for four years, or six, or twenty-one by signaling their assent to a thirty-two page document, titled simply “ The Paris Agreement .”

Not quite a treaty, since it is not really legally binding in a strict sense, it gives the world its second global climate accord, superseding the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and replacing it with a global map for our climate future agreed by all 196 parties to it, the nations of the world.

It’s just not a map to any kind of future we should want.

Saving the World:  The Master Narrative
Scenes of relief and jubilation broke out on the floor of the closing plenary when Laurent Fabius, the President of COP 21, gaveled the session to a close amidst thunderous applause late on Saturday afternoon.  It was a huge diplomatic accomplishment to get the nations to agree to anything, as anyone who has ever followed a COP can attest.

And in this sense, it was a miracle, since going into Paris the parties were far apart on all the tough negotiating issues that had stymied progress over the years:  who should be responsible for emissions reductions, how massive adaptation funds should be raised and allocated to the Global South, and who would help climate-impacted countries recover from the loss and damage of catastrophic weather events.

Of the agreement, Laurent Fabius said:

“It is my deep conviction that we have come up with an ambitious and balanced agreement. Today it is a moment of truth.”  

Not shy about taking credit, Barack Obama said:

“We’ve transformed the United States into the global leader in fighting climate change,” and tweeted:  “This is huge: Almost every country in the world just signed on to the #Paris Agreement on climate change – thanks to American leadership.”  

Al Gore was “visibly moved” while John Kerry announced :

"It’s a victory for all of the planet and future generations.”   

French President François Hollande observed:

“12 December 2015 will be a date to go down in history as a major leap for mankind.  It is rare in any lifetime to have a chance to change the world.”

Some international experts agreed.

Lord Stern, author of Why Are We Waiting? The Logic, Urgency, and Promise of Tackling Climate Change, proclaimed :

“This is a historic moment, not just for us and our world today, but for our children, our grandchildren and future generations. The Paris Agreement is a turning point in the world’s fight against unmanaged climate change, which threatens prosperity and wellbeing among both rich and poor countries.”

Prof. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research effused :

“The spirits of Paris have defeated the ghosts of Copenhagen! Reason and moral combined at the COP21 to deliver a historical climate agreement that finally transcends national egotisms.”   

In the view of Eva Filzmoser, director at Carbon Market Watch,  

“The French Presidency achieved a miracle in presenting a detailed treaty acceptable to all Parties. At first reading, the new global climate treaty is surprisingly positive. We are still looking for the loopholes.”

Most of the world press will by now have followed suit.  The message that goes out to the world will be the saving the planet one, tempered to some degree by any closer look at the details, and failing to credit the success of the climate justice movement in raising awareness about the issues, or noting its own, more nuanced and critical assessments, in the narratives that are being written at a furious pace.

Burning the World:  The Climate Movement Judges the Paris Outcome
First reactions from the climate movements, NGOs, and activists were decidedly mixed, and where one stood on the Agreement could be a political litmus test of where the climate movement’s fault lines and political sensibilities lie.

Truly celebratory praise came instantly from the more than seven hundred million-member on-line movement Avaaz, in the form of an e-mail from Emma Ruby-Sachs titled:   
“We did it! – A turning point in human history”:

World leaders at the UN climate talks have just set a landmark goal that can save everything we love! This is what we marched for, what we signed, called, donated, messaged, and hoped for: a brilliant and massive turning point in human history.
It’s called net-zero human emissions – a balancing of what we release into the air and what is taken out – and when the dust settles and the Paris Agreement is in the hands of lawmakers, clean energy will be the best, cheapest, and most effective way to keep their promise. This gives us the platform we need to realize the dream of a safe future for generations!
Out of great crises, humanity has borne beautiful visions. World War II gave rise to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an enduring standard for our spirit and capacity as one people. The fall of Apartheid led South Africa to the single most bold and progressive constitution in the world.
Ambitious visions like these rely on movements to carry them into the mainstream, and on movements to make them reality in our everyday lives. Today is no exception.

Some of the trouble with this formulation is indicated by other large climate NGOs.  There were many shades of criticism, beginning with the cautious optimism of Greenpeace International Director Kumi Naidoo, who drew the balance sheet this way :

The wheel of climate action turns slowly, but in Paris it has turned. This deal puts the fossil fuel industry on the wrong side of history.

There’s much in the text that has been diluted and polluted by the people who despoil our planet, but it contains a new imperative to limit temperature rises to 1.5 degrees. That single number, and the new goal of net zero emissions by the second half of this century, will cause consternation in the boardrooms of coal companies and the palaces of oil-exporting states…

There’s not enough in this deal for the nations and people on the frontlines of climate change. It contains an inherent, ingrained injustice. The nations which caused this problem have promised too little help to the people who are already losing their lives and livelihoods.

The global movement 350.org, far more radical in its views than it used to be, went further.  In the words of Bill McKibben:

“Every government seems now to recognize that the fossil fuel era must end and soon. But the power of the fossil fuel industry is reflected in the text, which drags out the transition so far that endless climate damage will be done. Since pace is the crucial question now, activists must redouble our efforts to weaken that industry. This didn’t save the planet but it may have saved the chance of saving the planet.” 

May Boeve, 350’s Executive Director, believes the Agreement can be used in the fight against the fossil fuel corporations and countries:

“This marks the end of the era of fossil fuels. There is no way to meet the targets laid out in this agreement without keeping coal, oil and gas in the ground. The text should send a clear signal to fossil fuel investors: divest now."

The climate justice and radical spectrum was unequivocal in its condemnation.  In a spirited defiance of police orders not to assemble (the government gave in at the last minute), an estimated 15,000 or more determined climate activists gathered to protest the agreement’s crossing of “red lines” for the planet and to honor those whose lives have been lost to climate injustice.

And at a gathering of thousands of activists who held hands in front of the Eiffel Tower on Saturday, Naomi Klein said what had to be said:

Our leaders have shown themselves willing to set our world on fire and we will not let that happen.  Our mood today is not one of despair but rather a clarifying sense of commitment and purpose.  We knew that these were not the real leaders.  We knew that the leaders were in the streets, that the leaders were in the fields, that this city is filled with climate heroes.

Despite their beautiful words, our leaders remained trapped in a broken system and a crashing worldview based on dominance of people and the planet and that worldview simply does not allow them to align their words, their goals, with their actions. 

And so the gap is increased between the rhetoric and the goal of safety and the reality of the epic danger they are allowing to unfold.  And the gap is increased between the expressions of solidarity with the most vulnerable and the reality of those leaders consistently putting the interests of the rich and powerful before the interests of the vulnerable, and indeed the interests of all humanity.

Our leaders have none of the courage that it takes to stand up to the corporate interests that are responsible for this crisis.  They can’t even say the words “fossil fuels” in this text.  So it is up to us to do what they so clearly refuse to do, which is to stand up to the polluters and make them pay.

And we will do this everywhere, using every tool that we can.  We will do it in the streets with protests like this one, and we will do it in the face of every single polluting project that they decide to try to roll out.

We are doing this already, and we’re winning….  This is a global movement.  Some of us call it Blockadia.  So we will take them on in the streets, the forests, and in the water.  In our schools, in our places of worship, and in our cities.  And we’re going after them with our art, with our culture, because as we know, the logic of austerity in incompatible with life on Earth…

We are accelerating the rollout of a society that is based on protecting life, on climate justice, on energy democracy…

As we go forward, we also have to acknowledge the grief, grief that we will not deny nor will we suppress, grief at what we have already lost, for those whom we have already lost.

And we acknowledge that there is also rage at those who could have acted long ago but chose not to, and at those who make that same disastrous decision still.

But mostly, mostly there is joy.  Mostly there is joy and resolve as we witness the next world taking shape before our eyes.  We used to think that it was our job to save the world.  Then we realized that we are really saving ourselves.  We used to say that were here to protect nature, and now we say that we are nature, protecting herself.

Under the title, “Too weak, too late, say climate justice campaigners” can be found an extensive compendium of radical opinion that emerged within hours of the outcome (the following indented quotes come from this very useful piece).

“This deal offers a frayed life-line to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people.”
– Helen Szoke, executive director, Oxfam

“The US is a cruel hypocrite. Obama spoke about embracing the US’s role of creating the problem and the need to take responsibility. This is all talk and no action. They created a clause that excludes compensation and liability for the losses and damages brought on by climate chaos. This is a deliberate plan to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.”
- Lidy Nacpil, Asian People’s Movement on Debt and Development

“We, Indigenous Peoples, are the redline. We have drawn that line with our bodies against the privatization of nature, to dirty fossil fuels and to climate change. We are the defenders of the world’s most biologically and culturally diverse regions. We will protect our sacred lands. Our knowledge has much of the solutions to climate change that humanity seeks. It’s only when they listen to our message that ecosystems of the world will be renewed.”
- Tom Goldtooth, Executive Director, Indigenous Environmental Network

“The Paris Agreement will be known as the Polluters’ Great Escape since it weakens rules on the rich countries and puts the world on a pathway to 3C warming.”
– Victor Menotti, International Forum on Globalization

“The price tag for climate damages this century will be in the trillions, with much of that damage in poor and vulnerable countries. The US is responsible for much of that toll, but they don’t care and they won’t pay. With arm twisting of developing countries, they have language now protecting the richest and heaping devastating costs onto the poorest.”
- Dorreen Stabinsky, Prof. of Global Environmental Politics, College of the Atlantic

“Close to 100% reductions are needed by developed countries already by 2030 for a reasonable chance of 2°, let alone 1.5° world. Paris had the opportunity to deliver radical pre-2020 action and did none of this. Developed countries’ refusal to commit to either cuts or necessary finance means we are sleepwalking into climate chaos.”
- Niclas Hällström, What Next Forum

“The Paris negotiators are caught up in a frenzy of self-congratulation about 1.5 degrees being included in the agreement, but the reality is that the reductions on the table are still locking us into 3 degrees of global warming…. The bullying and arm twisting of rich countries, combined with the pressure to agree to a deal at all costs, has ensured that the agreement will prevent poor countries from seeking redress for the devastating impacts of a crisis that has been thrust upon them.”
- Nick Dearden the director of Global Justice Now

“The deal fails to deliver the rules and tools to ensure that climate change doesn’t spiral out of control. Many in Paris seem to have forgotten the very people that this climate agreement was supposed to protect….  In spite of this result in Paris, people all over the world must push their governments to go beyond what they have agreed here.”
- Teresa Anderson, Policy Officer, ActionAid International

The key organizers of climate justice actions by civil society during COP 21 were unanimous in their condemnation of the outcome.

Sara Shaw, Friends of the Earth International climate justice and energy coordinator  said: 

“Rich countries have moved the goal posts so far that we are left with a sham of a deal in Paris. Through piecemeal pledges and bullying tactics, rich countries have pushed through a very bad deal.”

Asad Rehman of the same organization, who knows as much about justice issues at the COP as anyone, put it this way:

“The iceberg has struck, the ship is going down and the band is still playing to warm applause.”

Attac France, one of the key climate justice organizations on the ground in Paris, active in every aspect of the mobilization of civil society, was equally critical.

Activist and spokesperson on climate issues Maxime Coombes said:

“The mandate given to COP 21, François Hollande and Laurent Fabius was not to get an accord at any price.  To use the terms ‘ambitious,’ ‘just,’ and ‘legally binding’ in presenting the Agreement is an intellectual fraud.  And to add a vague reference to ‘climate justice’ is contemptuous of all who have mobilized under its name for years.” 

 Attac spokesperson Thomas Coutrot added:

“The emptiness of this agreement reflects the powerlessness of governments to attack the true causes of climate disruption.  This comes as no surprise:  the greed of the multinationals, the fossil fuel energy, and the obsession with growth are considered untouchable.”

Danny Chivers and Jess Worth, who have been providing excellent coverage of COP 21 for The New Internationalist, evaluate the outcome in terms of the four criteria of The People’s Test developed by movement organizations from the global South.  These are:

1. Catalyze immediate, urgent and drastic emission reductions;
2. Provide adequate support for transformation;
3. Deliver justice for impacted people;
4. Focus on genuine, effective action rather than false solutions.

The title of their piece gives the answer:  “Paris deal: Epic fail on a planetary scale.”

Where is the Justice?
The central failures of what has happened in Paris have been underlined by the trenchant criticisms above.  Based on a year-long study of the process, actually stretching back to my first time inside the COP in Durban four years ago, and shaped by these roller-coaster two weeks in Paris, I offer here my first reflections on what is, by any measure, a historic moment in the sense that it will shape all our futures.

There are two huge gaps between the lines of the Agreement:  one of greenhouse gas emissions and one of elementary climate justice.

The INDCs that constitute the core of the Agreement’s stance on the greenhouse gases that are driving global warming faster and faster toward the cliff of extreme danger, give us a world of something over three degrees Celsius – in other worlds, Paris has been a completely unacceptable failure to take the kind of action that climate science is screaming for and the world’s people must have.

If anything, mentioning 1.5 degrees in the text only heightens this glaring hole at the center of the plan to save the planet, highlighting how far away our governments are from being able to rise to the greatest challenge that humanity has ever faced.

Of the 180 pledges received, only two have been judged “sufficient” by Climate Action Tracker , those of Gambia and Bhutan, whose share in global emissions is vanishingly small, and whose courageous actions are therefore symbolic, in both the sense of “only symbolic” and “visionary and humane.”

Kevin Anderson, Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, noted that

“The Copenhagen text included aviation and shipping emissions, that together are as large as the emissions of Britain and Germany combined, but they are not mentioned in the Paris text.’  Overall, he finds the agreement “weaker than Copenhagen” and “not consistent with the latest science.”  

This is put more colorfully but just as strongly by the United States’ most well-known climate scientist, James Hansen:

“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

So, emissions remain essentially out of control, pace the optimists who make observations along the lines of “We have cut a degree or more of the business-as-usual scenario already, and we will do more and more as time goes on and the provisions for adjusting national pledges become increasingly ambitious.”  It is very hard for me to see this happening (and I’m an optimist too most days).

The words “climate justice” and “just transition” actually each appear once in the Agreement’s preamble, but they are passed over as foreign notions held by unnamed others:

“Noting the importance of ensuring the integrity of all ecosystems, including oceans, and the protection of biodiversity, recognized by some cultures as Mother Earth, and noting the importance for some of the concept of ‘climate justice’, when taking action to address climate change.”

In reality, instead of justice, the most vulnerable nations in the world have been betrayed by the global North and the big emitters like China and India.

Loss and damage remain words on paper, with no permanent standing, no mechanism for finding the funds, and a clear statement that no one is “liable” to pay assist countries hard hit already by climate catastrophe like the Philippines and many others to come.  The decision text on this makes clear “that Article 8 of the Agreement does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation.”:

“The idea of even discussing loss and damage now or in the future was off limits. The Americans told us it would kill the COP,” said Leisha Beardmore, the chief negotiator for the Seychelles. “They have always been telling us: ‘Don’t even say that’.”

Instead of this, developing countries are offered “ Comprehensive risk assessment and management, risk insurance facilities, climate risk pooling and other insurance solutions.”

There is no firm commitment from any country to actually make a contribution to the Green Climate Fund’s promised $100 billion annually by 2020.  These funds are for making the front-line communities of the global South more resilient to the inevitable disasters that even 1.5 degrees with serve up with increasing frequency.  Instead, developed countries are “strongly urged” to find “a concrete roadmap” to locate this missing money!

There is nothing binding in the Paris Agreement that will force any government to act with compassion, responsibility, and more than words to bend the arc of climate change in the direction of justice.

And why should we expect otherwise?  The real problem with the COP process is that it can only produce a document forged by and for the world’s political and economic elites.  The most rapacious corporations in the world can carry on wrecking the planet, especially if they say the right things and make some gestures of awareness of the climate crisis.

The main mechanisms for bringing down emissions remain in marketized form, subject to every abuse that follows when we measure human needs and nature herself in the cold, hard terms of cash money.

Salvaging Something for the Future We Want
Enshrining the words “1.5 degrees Celsius” in a global climate accord opens a door to a house on fire, and will be turned into one of the most powerful memes of the global climate justice movement now.  We will finally turn the page on the COP process and get down to the business of transforming a world that has been broken by greed, callous disregard for life, and the slow violence that capitalism visits on the majority world, each day a little more cruelly than the last.

The climate justice movement has gained demonstrable strength in the course of 2014 and 2015, and here in Paris too.  The connections made here, the insights gained, the empowerment of activists of all ages, will be taken home to make deeper connections with the movements, organizations, front-line communities, and people who are already doing so much.

They will be used to try to stop the climate madness of the world’s political and economic elites, and the systems that have created it:  capitalism, patriarchy, racism, militarism, colonialism – all the operations of power in our warming world.

My guess is that at the end of the day, the network of networks that comprise the movement will be stronger than ever, going into the battles of 2016.

“When we came into these Paris talks we had very low expectations. These expectations have been exceeded in how low they are. It’s what happens on Monday that’s the most important thing. Do we return to our capitals, do we build a movement, do we make sure our countries are doing their fair share? Do we stop the dirty energy industry, do we invest in new climate jobs, do we invest in community-owned decentralized energy? And most importantly, do we stand in solidarity with the millions of people across the world who are struggling for climate justice?” – Asad Rehman, quoted by Danny Chivers

It’s up to the movements, networks, artivists, thinkers, bloggers, organizers, and countless “ordinary people” to step up in 2016.

We will create the worlds we dream of together, no matter what it takes, and we will fight to keep them alive in our hearts and our communities, helping Mother Earth defend herself, and in the process, rising to the great challenges of our time, step by step, win or lose, come what may.



.

COP21 ends in squalid retrenchment

SUBHEAD: By comparison to what it could have been, it’s a miracle. By comparison to what it should have been, it’s a disaster.

By George Monbiot on 12 Saturday 2015 for the Guardian -
(http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2015/dec/12/paris-climate-deal-governments-fossil-fuels)


Image above: "Burn Baby, Burn!" poster illustration from gallery "Fiddling While the Earth Burns" From (http://www.catchnews.com/photo/fiddling-while-earth-burns-slap-in-the-face-images-as-cop21-ends-1449885522.html).

[IB Publisher's note: As Monbiot points out below, to change a specific target from a occurring on a specific date in the future to "As soon as possible" really means that it may never happen. This is the kind of 'lawerese"spoken by compromised negotiators at 3am in the dark halls out of sight from the public on the day after the due date.Something that can be misconstrued as progress while leaving a back door open for business. The government of the world cannot stop accelerating Climate Change. The military, industrial corporations, big-ag and, of course, the power hungry consumer economy, will not give up burning us all to death. It's now, and always has been, upto each of us to turn away from the conflagration.]

By comparison to what it could have been, it’s a miracle. By comparison to what it should have been, it’s a disaster.

Inside the narrow frame within which the talks have taken place, the draft agreement at the UN climate talks in Paris is a great success. The relief and self-congratulation with which the final text was greeted, acknowledges the failure at Copenhagen six years ago, where the negotiations ran wildly over time before collapsing.

The Paris agreement is still awaiting formal adoption, but its aspirational limit of 1.5C of global warming, after the rejection of this demand for so many years, can be seen within this frame as a resounding victory. In this respect and others, the final text is stronger than most people anticipated.

 

Live coverage from COP21 in Paris, as nearly 200 governments prepare to officially adopt a climate change deal on how to cut carbon emissions post-2020

Outside the frame it looks like something else. I doubt any of the negotiators believe that there will be no more than 1.5C of global warming as a result of these talks. As the preamble to the agreement acknowledges, even 2C, in view of the weak promises governments brought to Paris, is wildly ambitious.

Though negotiated by some nations in good faith, the real outcomes are likely to commit us to levels of climate breakdown that will be dangerous to all and lethal to some. Our governments talk of not burdening future generations with debt. But they have just agreed to burden our successors with a far more dangerous legacy: the carbon dioxide produced by the continued burning of fossil fuels, and the long-running impacts this will exert on the global climate.

With 2C of warming, large parts of the world’s surface will become less habitable. The people of these regions are likely to face wilder extremes: worse droughts in some places, worse floods in others, greater storms and, potentially, grave impacts on food supply. Islands and coastal districts in many parts of the world are in danger of disappearing beneath the waves.

A combination of acidifying seas, coral death and Arctic melting means that entire marine food chains could collapse. On land, rainforests may retreat, rivers fail and deserts spread. Mass extinction is likely to be the hallmark of our era. This is what success, as defined by the cheering delegates, will look like.

And failure, even on their terms? Well that is plausible too. While earlier drafts specified dates and percentages, the final text aims only to “reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible”. Which could mean anything and nothing.

In fairness, the failure does not belong to the Paris talks, but to the whole process. A maximum of 1.5C, now an aspirational and unlikely target, was eminently achievable when the first UN climate change conference took place in Berlin in 1995.

Two decades of procrastination, caused by lobbying – overt, covert and often downright sinister – by the fossil fuel lobby, coupled with the reluctance of governments to explain to their electorates that short-term thinking has long-term costs, ensure that the window of opportunity is now three-quarters shut. The talks in Paris are the best there have ever been. And that is a terrible indictment.Pinterest

Progressive as the outcome is by comparison to all that has gone before, it leaves us with an almost comically lopsided agreement. While negotiations on almost all other global hazards seek to address both ends of the problem, the UN climate process has focused entirely on the consumption of fossil fuels, while ignoring their production.

In Paris the delegates have solemnly agreed to cut demand, but at home they seek to maximise supply. The UK government has even imposed a legal obligation upon itself, under the Infrastructure Act 2015, to “maximise economic recovery” of the UK’s oil and gas.

Extracting fossil fuels is a hard fact. But the Paris agreement is full of soft facts: promises that can slip or unravel. Until governments undertake to keep fossil fuels in the ground, they will continue to undermine the agreement they have just made.

With Barack Obama in the White House and a dirigiste government overseeing the negotiations in Paris, this is as good as it is ever likely to get.

No likely successor to the US president will show the same commitment. In countries like the UK, grand promises abroad are undermined by squalid retrenchments at home. Whatever happens now, we will not be viewed kindly by succeeding generations.

So yes, let the delegates congratulate themselves on a better agreement than might have been expected. And let them temper it with an apology to all those it will betray.


.

The COP21 World is Broken

SUBHEAD: Not only is it broken, but the hypocrisy of COP21 is not going to put it back together.

By John Foran on 10 December 2015 for Resilience -
(http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-12-10/the-world-is-broken-and-the-hypocrisy-of-cop-21-isn-t-going-to-put-it-back-together)


Image above: Activists of global anti-poverty charity Oxfam, wearing masks depicting some of the world leaders, stage a protest at site of the 2015 Paris Climate Conference COP21 summit, on November 28, 2015.Photo by Benoit Tessier for Reuters. From (https://climatechangeplanet.wordpress.com/).

Hypocrisy can take many forms, but at COP 21 it has one underlying purpose:  to deceive others for one’s own gain.  It comes in sizes both large and small.  Sometimes it is in what is said, sometimes it’s not saying what you know (think ExxonMobil’s own climate science).

Sometimes it means not calling things by their names, or giving things names that mean the opposite of what they say (“climate-smart agriculture”).  Sometimes it’s touting a solution that doesn’t solve the problem (“carbon trading” or the REDD reforestation scheme), or using the same word to refer to diametrically opposed visions for the world economy (“sustainable development”).

And sometimes it’s just out in the open, a brazen display of power, right in your face.
There is plenty of hypocrisy and deception here in Paris to go around.

The US plays this game to win.  All the big emitters, led by China, and followed by the European Union, Russia, India, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Australia, and the rest, are players.  The dirty energy companies, the banks, big agriculture, and their corporate partners around the world stand off to the side, calling the plays and standing to win big.

The latest version of the proposed Draft Outcome, issued by COP 21 President Laurent Fabius on December 9, has reduced the climate treaty text from 48 to 29 pages.

It consists of a 15 page “Agreement” in the form of 26 Articles, followed by a 14 page proposed draft “Decision” text, which lays out the results of COP 21 and touches on matters that while important to the outcome, have not made it into the Agreement, thus improving the chances that parts of it can be legally binding but watering down the whole.  It is all sleight of hand.

We should look at some of its peculiar propositions with an eye to spotting the planet-killing hypocrisy that the COP is serving up to us as the first big step to save the Earth.

Fossil Fuels:  That Which Cannot be Named
The fossil fuels which are inexorably warming the planet do not appear by name anywhere in the text.  The battle over their future is being fought out in Article 2 where the debate over 1.5 or 2 degrees of warming is going to decide among three options:

Option 1 : below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels,

Option 2 : well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels [and to [rapidly] scale up global efforts to limit temperature increase to below 1.5 °C] [, while recognizing that in some regions and vulnerable ecosystems high risks are projected even for warming above 1.5 °C],

Option 3 : below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
Option 2 may well be the winning formula for bringing together intractable foes over options 1 versus 3.

The fate of fossil fuels is also linked to Article 3 of the Agreement which covers “Mitigation” of greenhouse gases under two options for the “Collective long-term goal” of the countries:

Option 1 : Parties collectively aim to reach the global temperature goal referred to in Article 2 through [a peaking of global greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking requires deeper cuts of emissions of developed countries and will be longer for developing countries; rapid reductions thereafter to [40–70 per cent][70–95 per cent] below 2010 levels by 2050; toward achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions [by the end][after the middle] of the century] informed by best available science, on the basis of equity and in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication.

Option 2 : Parties collectively aim to reach the global temperature goal referred to in Article 2 through a long-term global low emissions [transformation toward [climate neutrality][decarbonization]] over the course of this century informed by best available science, on the basis of equity and in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication.

This is a great example of the significance of bracketed text, which means words that are not yet agreed to by all.  Removing either the brackets or the text is where all the action and drama is now taking place.

Article 3 asks:  Should we aim for a fixed percentage of emissions reductions and decarbonization, and if so, should this be on the order of the decisive cuts that climate science requires us to choose (70-95 percent by 2050)?

Or, on the other hand, should we accept the fossil fuel corporations and countries that want no mention of any percentage reduction, or the least possible, or failing that, a vague “climate neutrality” or “net zero” for emissions in the global economy?

These formulations would keep the door open for the continued extraction of oil, gas, and coal based on the assumption that we will figure out ways in the future to extract as much greenhouse gases as we produce.  They also want any statements that phase fossil fuels out to take effect only at the end of the century rather than 2050, needless to say.

Both sides in this battle have made sure to soften the effects of the other’s option being preferred, so the negotiations over mitigation targets look to be long and hard.  This matters, but no matter which targets are chosen, the fact remains that current pledges of the countries will take us to 3 degrees or more.

This is the hypocrisy of something not said in the text.

Free Trade and Unfree Governments:  Burning Carbon while the World Fiddles around
Much later on, bracketed Decision item 33 proposes that “Unilateral measures shall not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.”

This impenetrable formulation implies that free trade and other agreements will continue to hamper countries’ efforts to take climate action should those countries “restrict” a corporation’s freedom to operate.

Among other things, it could be used as grounds for legal action taken against governments, regions, or cities trying to ban or stop particular fossil fuel operations, whether drilling, transportation in pipelines or on trains, or the construction of ports and terminals for their export abroad.

The counter to this vision of unchecked free trade is a bracketed proposal for an addendum known as Article 3 ter, titled “Mechanism to Support Sustainable Development.”

It is highly significant that a competing clause from the previous draft that had caused concern among climate justice activists has been dropped from the negotiating text here.

The deleted text called for a mechanism to “Provide for net global emission reductions through the cancellation of a share of units generated, transferred, used or acquired,” a proxy for carbon markets and other offset programs which have so far done little to reduce emissions.

Whether this is a substantive victory of course remains to be seen.  Things have a way of sneaking in through the back door or behind closed doors at a COP.  Maybe not prohibiting something explicitly is as good as including it in the text.

The draft article 3 ter does contain text that appears to be intended as an alternative to the abuses that market mechanisms inevitably bring with them:

A mechanism is hereby established to support holistic and integrated approaches to sustainable development in harmony with nature, to be available to assist [developing country] Parties … including, in a balanced manner, mitigation, adaptation, provision of finance, technology transfer and capacity building [emphasis added].

This seems more in keeping with the climate justice demand for a different kind of development that is ecologically sound and protected from rapacious corporate designs, although one must doubt that the wording is strong enough to prevent its abuse by governments and corporations.

US hypocrisy on Loss and Damage
Although references to “the needs of developing countries” abound, sometimes together with reference to those that are “extremely vulnerable,” the text on Loss and Damage was unchanged as of Wednesday and reported as still under deliberation.

This promises to be a major sticking point in the final hours of negotiations, made all the harder because the US has been telling small island states and others behind closed doors that it cannot accept a Loss and Damage mechanism with real teeth.

Nitin Sethi,senior associate editor at the Business Standard in India, reports that the US will only accept language on this subject that states:  “The Parties recognize the importance of averting and minimizing loss and damage from climate change...

The Parties commit to continued implementation of the Warsaw International Mechanism under the Convention, in accordance with decisions of the Conference of the Parties and on a cooperative basis that does not involve liability and compensation” [emphasis added].
Sethi reports:

“Midway through the negotiations, the US is showing its true colours by proposing a specific exclusion of any future compensation for loss and damage.  Such a move belies the US’ empty rhetoric of solidarity with vulnerable nations,” said Harjeet Singh, Climate Policy Manager at ActionAid International and an observer focused on this element of the climate negotiations.

“From their point of view, in the shape of Loss and Damage the developed countries see a tiger cub in the room and they want to break its teeth before it learns to hunt,” said a developing country negotiator.

In other words, the US, EU, and other wealthy countries refuse and fear the notion that they bear any legal (let alone moral) responsibility for the extreme weather that has proven especially deadly when it strikes the poorest, most vulnerable nations and people.

But this is precisely what “climate justice” entails:  that those who are responsible for climate change are responsible for the damages it causes to those who are not responsible for causing the problem.

Thus, the one achievement of the negotiations at COP 19 in Warsaw with any potential to provide relief for those millions of people whose lives will be shattered in an instant by devastating weather in the future, would not survive the negotiations in any meaningful sense.

Sethi told Democracy Now! that “ as per all countries, I think there’s a big degree of game that they all play, a theatric that they play.”

How to Turn $10 Billion into $62 Billion
The Green Climate Fund was a face-saving promise made at Copenhagen in 2009 for the wealthy countries of the global North to come up with $100 billion annually by 2020.  Its purpose is to help others make the necessary infrastructural investments to avoid burning fossil fuels in their efforts to bring millions of people out of poverty, but it remains embarrassingly short of the necessary funds as the talks race toward their conclusion.

In fact, parties are not even in agreement as to how much money has been pledged, or is being transferred currently.  Wealthy nations cite a report issued earlier this fall by the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (basically, Europe plus the US and Canada) that in 2014, $62 billion was devoted to this purpose.

But critics have noted that this sum includes loans, private funding, and export credits, whose “ultimate beneficiaries … are actors in rich countries – not developing countries, much less poor and vulnerable communities,” according to Senior Policy Analyst Brandon Wu of ActionAid, who represents developed country NGOs on the board of the Green Climate Fund.

Laurent Fabius, who as President of COP 21 is the person at the center of the process, accepts this figure, saying there is only $40 billion to go.  India, China, and South Africa, on the other hand, strongly disputed the $62 billion figure on Tuesday, with India’s Economic Ministry claiming that the amount of real money transferred in 2014 could be as low as $2.2 billion, and with firm country pledges for 2020 stuck at the $10 billion level, according to the Green Climate Fund itself.

Simon Buckle, head of climate change at the OECD and lead author on the climate finance report acknowledged that “The question of what counts or doesn’t count in the $100bn is not for the OECD to determine.”  In a possibly ironic understatement, he noted: “We understand this is a hugely political issue.”

All of this makes plain that there is a huge gap on climate finance at the heart of the treaty text  that will need to be bridged by parties that are at odds on the issue of how much money there will be, what form it should take to constitute a real transfer of funds, and who will provide it.

Oh, and for some large-scale hypocrisy, let’s observe that $100 billion a year won’t even begin to address the adaptation problems of all the countries who need funds, which would be on the order of a trillion dollars annually at the very least, to start immediately, not in 2020.

Thus the debate is shifted from a just accounting of the North’s climate debt to the South to a fight over “crumbs,” according to some climate activists.

Compare this sum with the equivalent amount the US found very quickly to bail out its failed financial institutions in 2008-9, or the trillions it has spent on waging war for oil in Iraq.

A Coalition of the Ambitious?
One of the meeting’s big surprises so far has been the announcement on Tuesday of an informal new grouping of countries that is being called “the high ambition coalition,” consisting of the EU and many nations of the global South, whose numbers swelled to more than 100 when the United States and other countries joined the next day.

China and India remain outside it, and it may make problems for the Alliance of Small Island States to hold together, as some of its members have not joined, perhaps out of suspicion of EU and US motives.

Such a coalition was originally proposed in July and has been kept secret until this critical stage in the talks.  One of its chief architects, Tony De Brum, foreign minister of the Marshall Islands, said : “We will be fighting for some very basic issues….

Strong recognition of the below 1.5-degree temperature goal, a clear pathway for a low-carbon future, five-yearly updates and a strong package of support for developing countries, including delivery of $100bn per annum.”

Whether this grouping really makes a difference remains to be seen (see the discussion of funding above), but it can be seen as a political coup for the United States and the EU, and it is certainly good cover for other US sins of omission and commission here.

Like the groundswell for a 1.5 degree temperature rise limit, this development provides a glimpse into the frantic closed-door bargaining that must now be going on.

The Hypocrisy of the State of Emergency
When the French state decided the public demonstrations around the COP would be banned, it committed the ultimate hypocrisy of making free political expression illegal.  There is no justification for banning political expression in a democracy, and the hypocrisy of doing so under the ridiculous excuse that it couldn’t guarantee our safety was plainly shown when it started to arrest, teargas, and jail nonviolent activists in the streets of Paris.

To criminalize in advance any expression of criticism at the outcome of the COP on December 12 is to create a state of emergency, an emergency for the right to publically participate and voice an opinion in a democratic state.

Ultimately, such an action is a dismissal of the basic well-being of humanity, in direct contradiction with the stated goals of the UN and the UNFCCC themselves, and only serves to illuminate the inconvenient truth that only radical social change will be up to the challenge posed by climate change.

The Big Lie:  COP 21 will Save Us
In the proposed draft “Decision” text, item 17 addresses the elephant in the room.  It “Notes with concern that the estimated aggregate greenhouse gas emission levels resulting from the INDCs in 2025 and 2030 do not fall within least-cost 2^oC scenarios, and that much greater emission reduction efforts than those associated with the INDCs will be required in the period after 2025 and 2030 in order to hold the temperature rise to below 2^oC or 1.5^oC above pre-industrial levels.”

What about Unintended Nationally Determined Contributions?  These are pledges, they are not commitments.  They are nationally determined, not collectively and equitably decided upon.  What happens when they are not adhered to?

Meanwhile, Article 10 on “The Global Stock Take” puts off till 2023 or 2024 the next such exercise, meaning we will live under the current INDCs’ unambitious 3 degrees of warming for another eight years before we even revisit the situation.  By then, more windows will be closed and thresholds of warming far greater than we should countenance will be facts on the ground, under the waters and in the air.

We will then be in a situation of chasing after incrementally smaller, more costly, more difficult improvements in reducing the odds our emissions efforts will enter into unpredictable and extremely dangerous (i.e. over 2 degrees of warming) territory. Here not only all bets are off, but runaway climate change becomes increasingly likely.

We are gambling with the future so that profits can continue to be made in a system incapable of meeting its minimum responsibilities to humans and to nature.  This is the big lie which voids the legitimacy of the treaty from the start.

The time to stop this climate game is now, the place is here, in Paris.

With the clock ticking down, and pressure growing to make bad decisions among poor options, the right thing to do is to declare timeout for a visionary change in the process.

The chances for this outcome – the great No that says yes to life – are dwindling, passing through our hands like sand in a glass, but they remain alive at the edge of the table and in the halls, or perhaps off the site, out of sight, waiting for their moment.

.

La Grande COP21 Negociation

SUBHEAD: Our choice is between the end of the American-style “way of life” or the end of humanity altogether.

By Asher Miller on 2 December 2015 for Post Carbon Institute -
(http://www.postcarbon.org/la-grande-negociation/)


Image above: How will the negotiations be organized at COP21? Letting government, industry, corporate and special interest reps from 200 countries try and make trade deals and pollution bargains. (http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en/how-are-the-negotiations-organized-during-cop21/).

I have to confess a certain reluctance in sharing my views about the Paris climate talks, knowing as I do that it’s all too easy to judge from a distance while so many wonderful, dedicated colleagues are in Paris trying to ensure that some kind of meaningful, tangible progress is achieved at COP21. And, after all, the talks have only just begun.

That said, a few things already seem pretty likely:

• There will be some kind of agreement reached, if only because negotiators are determined not to repeat the disaster of COP15 in Copenhagen.
  
  
• The agreement will be insufficient to limit warming to at or below 2° Celsius, the goal established six years ago. Left alone, the pledges submitted by countries to date will have us overshoot that mark by nearly 1°C or more. Therefore, the Paris agreement will be spun—in the words of Christiana Figueres (Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change)—as “the start of a long journey.” Even though the UNFCCC journey started fully 21 years ago.
  
  
• To square the gap between what’s pledged and what’s needed, we’ll likely hear increasing talk about “negative emissions” technologies, despite the fact that these technologies remain theoretical, unproven, or questionable at scale. It reminds me a little of that famous “then a miracle occurs” cartoon.
  
  
• A major sticking point to getting all countries to sign onto any agreement is the question of historical responsibility and the concern of poorer nations that climate mitigation not hamper their continued “development.” China’s President, Xi Jinping, said in a speech on the first day of the Paris talks that “addressing climate change should not deny the legitimate needs of developing countries to reduce poverty and improve living standards.”
  
  
• Another key question is whether the Paris agreement will be legally binding. In this, countries’ preferences may come down to their political realities at home. It’s kind of hard for President Obama to commit to a legally binding agreement (which would require ratification) when he’s busy trying to fend off Congressional attempts to undo his Clean Power Plan and block US contributions to the United Nations Green Climate Fund.

So at the end of this historic meeting we may well wind up with a nonbinding agreement that badly overshoots the 2°C target, doesn’t go into effect until 2020, ends ten years later, and counts on unproven technologies and unspecified promises of financial aid to countries most at risk. It’s hard to square that with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s opening admonition: “We cannot afford indecision, half measures or merely gradual approaches. Our goal must be a transformation.”

Despite all this, I happen to agree with those that believe an agreement in Paris is absolutely critical, even if it is woefully, dangerously insufficient – especially if that agreement has transparency provisions and legally-binding periodic reviews, which President Obama champions. It’s much easier to build momentum when you’re already moving forward, however slowly and haltingly.

It’s only day 3 of the meetings, but I’ve already come to one conclusion:  

As a society, we’re still stuck in the bargaining phase of Kübler-Ross’s Stages of Grief.

Yes, there’s actual bargaining taking place between climate negotiators at COP21. But I’m talking about a larger, more systemic bargaining that’s occurring: Our attempts to respond to the existential threat of climate change while holding desperately to our extractive, growth-and-consumption-based way of life.

But as PCI Fellow Bill McKibben likes to say,

“Physics and chemistry don’t bargain.”

It’s not only world leaders who are trying to mitigate the climate crisis while maintaining “business as usual.” Too many environmentalists are engaged in their own version of bargaining—placing their faith in the assertion that all our energy needs can be met affordably from wind, solar, and water technologies by 2050. Now, I would agree with this claim if we thought long and hard about what we mean by the word “needs.”

But the (sometimes spoken but more often unspoken) expectation is that we won’t “need” to significantly change how we live.

The rationale, of course, is that “our way of life” is currently non-negotiable and so we must operate within the political realities of the day if we’re to have any hope of making some kind of climate progress.

And that’s true to a point. In fact, it’s precisely what’s led to the kind of agreement we’re likely to get out of Paris—incremental, insufficient, with lots of prayers and promises that technology will save the day.

Ultimately, we have no choice but to move from the bargaining stage of grief to that of acceptance. The choice we do have is what grief we’ll have to accept – the end of the American-style “way of life” or the end of humanity altogether.

This is where I’m focusing my efforts. It’s also where the U.S. climate movement can step forward yet again because, frankly, there doesn’t seem to be anyone else capable of doing it.

A couple of years ago, Rob Hopkins (founder of the Transition Network) and I argued in a co-authored white paper that the climate movement should embrace post-growth economics and invest some of their time, energy, and capital to building community resilience.

We argued then, and still do, that local efforts to dramatically reduce energy consumption and produce sustainable energy and food are vital strategies to stabilize the climate.

Not only do they help individuals and communities mitigate and adapt to climate change, they offer a compelling alternative to the American way of life that is setting us on a crash course with the real limits of nature.
Thankfully, I see five things that the climate movement has in its favor:

1. Renewable energy costs are down and market penetration is up, while fossil fuel companies—thanks to low prices and increasing marginal costs—are hurting. Alternatives seem possible.
   
   
2. Recognition of the climate threat has gained broad acceptance (the laughable views of recalcitrant deniers notwithstanding) and is finally reaching the point of international policy, however insufficient.
   
   
3. Since Copenhagen six years ago, the climate movement has actually become that in more than name—an international movement that’s fairly well organized, is embracing direct action, and can be quickly mobilized.
   
   
4. There is a growing awareness of links between the fossil fuel system/climate change and social justice, humanitarian crises, human health, and other planetary boundary issues. The climate crisis is a systems crisis.
   
   
5. We have entered an era of new economic, energy, and climate “normals.” The benefits of economic growth and consumerism are being felt by fewer and fewer Americans. People are increasingly looking for an alternative.

In the six years between the failure at Copenhagen and the likely marginal victory at Paris, the climate movement has made great progress. But as we literally and figuratively leave Paris and return home, the hard but important and rewarding work really begins.

Read in French.

.

Maui mayor signs pact with Monsanto

SOURCE: Brad Parsons (mauibrad@hotmail.com)
SUBHEAD: Maui Mayor Arikawa signs Memorandum of Understanding with Monsanto requiring pesticide use disclosure.

By Staffon 20 November 2013 for Maui News -
(http://mauinow.com/2013/11/20/maui-mayor-signs-mou-with-monsanto-requiring-disclosure/)


Image above: Monsanto’s Alex Mangayayam (right) explains the company’s drip irrigation system to Nature Conservancy Molokai staff members Russell Kallstrom (left) and Wailana Moses (center). File photo courtesy, Monsanto Molokai.From original article.

Maui Mayor Alan Arakawa announced that he has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Monsanto, “obtaining assurances from the company that they will engage in safe practices involving restricted-use pesticides.”

The MOU was reached earlier this month, and comes after bills were passed on Kauaʻi and in Hawaiʻi County, involving restrictions on the use of pesticides, the mayor’s announcement said.

According to officials with the mayor’s office, the county decided to approach Monsanto, while watching the developments in other counties, seeking “disclosure of the company’s restricted-use pesticides and all information about related practices.”

According to Mayor Arakawa, Monsanto, which operates farms on Maui and Molokaʻi, “readily complied,” and signed an agreement being referred to as the “Maui County AG Oversight Agreement.”

Monsanto Community & Government Affairs Manager Carol Reimann commented on the new agreement saying, “Monsanto has a company-wide pledge to dialogue and respect, and we strive every day to be a good neighbor and manage our business responsibly.”

“We are pleased to have engaged in the mayor’s ‘Ag Oversight Agreement,’ as it is a reflection of our sincere desire for positive dialogue and improved understanding of our farming practices. We appreciate the mayor’s strong leadership and commitment to the community,” said Reimann.

The mayor’s office released details of the agreement, which state that Monsanto must do the following:

• Disclose details on the restricted-use pesticides that are being used here, including the types, amounts used and the number of acres treated;
• Provide information about their stewardship measures related to pesticide technologies, fugitive dust and soil erosion;
• Strictly adhere to all federal and state pesticide-use requirements; and
• Meet quarterly with Maui County regarding the use of pesticides and other issues the community may have.

Mayor Arakawa said, “the AGOA will help provide some much-needed information to the public without putting financial burdens on taxpayers or opening the county up to costly lawsuits.”

“Responsible use of pesticides is a concern for us all, especially for those of us who grew up on these islands when sugar cane and pineapples were our main exports,” said Mayor Arakawa in a press release statement issued this afternoon.

“There must be safeguards and a sharing of information, and I believe the AG Oversight Agreement is a proactive step we needed to take in providing both for our community.”

Similar MOU agreements are also being developed by the County of Maui with Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company, according to the mayor’s announcement.
.

GMO Bill 2491 Morphs

SUBHEAD: Activists are waking up to the realization that although the bill was passed, it is far from intact.

By Joan Conrow on 4 October 2013 for Kauai Piko -
(http://kauaipiko.blogspot.com/2013/10/bill-2491-morphs.html)

[Note by Andy Parx on FaceBook: Anyone who has been popping corks and dancing in the streets over Bill 2491 passing out of committee heading for a final vote next Tuesday had better take a look at the new and for the most part NOT improved bill. And to save you the time and effort Joan Conrow has done the job for you.

Watered down doesn't even begin to describe the bill in its present "Draft 1" amended form. Thanks to JoAnn Yukimura and Nadine Nakamura it's a shadow if its former content. See Fufaro blocking 2491 Vote!]


Image above: Keep smiling! Nadine Nakamura and JoAnn Yukimura. From their official Kauai County Council portraits.

PASS THE BILL demanded the bold letters on the red tee-shirts. “Pass the bill!” exhorted the people wearing them. And last Friday, when a Kauai County Council committee did pass Bill 2491 draft 1 — the pesticide/GMO measure — supporters celebrated jubilantly.

But now, as the dust settles and the initial euphoria evaporates, the grousing and anger have returned. Activists are waking up to the realization that although the bill was passed, it is far from intact.

Councilwomen JoAnn Yukimura and Nadine Nakamura took control of the bill from its sponsors, Councilmen Tim Bynum and Gary Hooser, and shifted just about everything during the amendment process, from the preamble to the provisions. When the full Council takes up the matter again at 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, Oct. 8, it will be looking at a bill that is very different than the one that was introduced.

Gone from the findings are declarations that the biotech industry has engaged in “rapid, long-term, and unregulated growth,” that the situation on Kauai is “unlike those facing any other county in the State of Hawai‘i” and that “residents have no choice” but to live, work and commute near the fields.

Removed as well was the assertion that Kauai, “more than any other county in the State of Hawai‘i,” has become a site of increased commercial ag, along with all references to field testing and experimental organisms.

The claim that genetically modified plants will “inevitably” disperse into the environment has been revised to “potentially,” and references to “[b]iological contamination” and “devastating economic impacts” were removed.

The original bill’s reference to the “3.5 tons” [7,000 pounds] of restricted use pesticides applied by five ag entities — a figure that somehow got inflated in popular citations to 18 tons — has been changed to “approximately 5,477.2 pounds, and 5,884.5 gallons.”

The new bill also adds this finding :

In 2012, restricted use pesticides were used on Kaua’i by agricultural operations (7,727 pounds, or 13%), county government operations (28,350 pounds of Chlorine Liquefied Gas, or 49%), and nongovernment operations for structural pest control (25,828 pounds, or 38%).

The new bill also removes the claim that certain pesticides have been banned by other states, as well as the assertion that “[p]esticide-laden dust and drift from both restricted use pesticides and general use pesticides is inevitable and results in long-term exposure to toxic chemicals harmful” to people and the environment. Instead, it says that drift and dust “sometimes travels” and are “potential sources of pollution endangering human health and the natural environment.”

Original language asserting that GMO cultivation and biotech ag practices haven’t been “properly or independently evaluated” was changed to “should be further evaluated,” with no reference to GMOs.

The “right to know” provision was changed slightly, from disclosing “what” GMOs are being grown to “whether or not” GMOs are being cultivated.

The definition of agriculture was changed from one that potentially excluded biotech:

“Agriculture” means the cultivation of crops, including crops for bioenergy, flowers, vegetables, foliage, fruits, forage, and timber; game and fish propagation; and the raising of livestock, including poultry, bees, fish, or other animal or aquatic life that are propagated for economic or personal use.

To one that includes biotech:

“Agriculture” means the breeding, planting, nourishing, caring for, gathering and processing of any animal or plant organism for the purpose of nourishing people or any other plant or animal organism; or for the purpose of providing the raw material for non-food products. For the purposes of this Article, “agriculture” shall include the growing of flowers and other ornamental crops and the commercial breeding and caring for animals as pets.”

Definitions were added for adult care homes, day care centers, dwellings, family care homes, family child care homes, medical facilities, nursing homes, orchards, parks, perennial waterways and schools — sites affected by buffer zones — but definitions for “experimental pesticides” and “significant effect” was deleted from the new bill.

The new bill also added a definition for the Office of Economic Development — headed by George Costa, an outspoken opponent of the bill — because that county agency will be charged with implementing the measure. The original bill called for Public Works to administer it.

The new bill retains the original disclosure provision that requires “any commercial agricultural entities that annually purchase or use in excess of five (5) pounds or fifteen (15) gallons of restricted use pesticides” in a year to disclose the use of all pesticides. However, the requirement to reveal use of “experimental pesticides” was removed.

The original bill also called for public signs to be posted a minimum of 72 hours prior to, during and after application of pesticides. The new bill calls for 24-hour advance posting, but leaves post application notice up to the pesticide label. Further, all signs shall conform to EPA worker protection standards. Workers will get daily notification.

The new bill strengthens notification requirements to adjacent residents:

Pesticide Pre-application notification must be provided to any requesting registered beekeeper, property owner, lessee, or person otherwise occupying any property within 1,500 feet from the property line of the commercial agricultural entity where any pesticide is anticipated to be applied. A mass notification list shall be established and maintained by each commercial agricultural entity, and shall include access to a legible map showing all field numbers and any key, legend, or other necessary map descriptions.

Any interested registered beekeeper, property owner, lessee, or person otherwise occupying any property within 1,500 feet from the property line of the operation of any commercial agricultural entity, shall submit contact information to the relevant commercial agricultural entity. These interested persons may submit up to three (3) local telephone numbers, and two (2) email addresses. All mass notification messages shall be sent via telephone, text message, or e-mail, with the method or methods of transmittal to be determined by each commercial agricultural entity.

Each commercial agricultural entity shall provide an alternative method of transmittal for any recipient who does not have access to the technology necessary for the method or methods of transmittal selected by the commercial agricultural entity. Requests to be included on, or removed from, the mass notification list must be processed within three (3) business days. These “good neighbor courtesy notices” shall contain the following information regarding all anticipated pesticide applications: pesticide to be used, active ingredient of pesticide to be used, date, time, and field number.

Each commercial agricultural entity shall send regular mass notification messages at least once during every seven (7) day week period summarizing the anticipated application of any pesticide for the upcoming seven (7) day week.

Whenever a pesticide application that was unforeseen and therefore not contained in the weekly “good neighbor courtesy notice” is deemed by the commercial agricultural entity to be necessary to alleviate a pest threat, an additional “good neighbor courtesy notice” shall be generated to all recipients of the mass notification list within twenty-four (24) hours after the application.

Each commercial agricultural entity shall submit regular public disclosure reports once during every seven (7) day week period compiling the actual application of all pesticides during the prior week. These weekly public disclosure reports shall contain the following information regarding all actual pesticide applications: date; time; field number; total acreage; pesticide used; active ingredient of pesticide used; gallons or pounds of pesticide used; and temperature, wind direction, and wind speed at time of pesticide application.

Each commercial agricultural entity shall submit all public disclosure reports to the County of Kaua’i Office of Economic Development (OED), and shall include online access to a legible map showing all field numbers and any key, legend, or other necessary map descriptions for all applicable commercial agricultural entities. All public disclosure reports shall be posted online, and available for viewing and download by any interested persons. OED shall develop a standardized reporting form.

The original bill’s requirement for annual public reports on the possession of GMOs by tax map key or ahupuaa, and the date of the introduction, remains in the new bill.

Regarding buffer zones, the new bill prohibits use of any pesticides within 500 feet of a school, medical facility, adult family boarding home, adult family group living home, day care center, family care home, family child care home, nursing home, or residential care home or dwelling — a broader definition than the original. It also adds a prohibition against spraying within 100 feet of any park.

Whereas the original called for a 500 foot buffer between pesticide applications and waterways and shorelines, the new bill narrows it to 100 feet. It also narrows the original 500 feet from a roadway to 100 feet, while providing an exception for Kauai Coffee’s trees, though roadside signs must be posted advising of the spraying.

Again, these buffers address all pesticides, but apply only to the five companies that use the most RUPs, not the county or state.

The new bill completely removes the prohibition against open air testing of experimental pesticides, as well as a moratorium on the experimental use and production of GMOs pending an EIS. It also deletes the requirement for the county to conduct an EIS and adopt a permitting process for “all commercial agricultural entities that intentionally or knowingly possess” GMOs.

Instead, the new bill calls for an:

Environmental and Public Health Impact Study (EPHIS) through a two-part community-based process to address key environmental and public health questions related to large-scale commercial agricultural entities using pesticides and growing genetically modified crops. The first part shall utilize a Joint Fact Finding Group (JFFG) convened and facilitated by a professional consultant to determine the scope and design of the EPHIS within twelve (12) months of the Notice to Proceed. In the second part of the process, the EPHIS shall be conducted by a professional consultant with oversight by the JFFG and shall be completed within eighteen (18) months of the relevant Notice to Proceed.

The new bill retains both the civil fine penalty of $10,000-$25,000 per day, and misdemeanor criminal penalties. The new bill would take effect six months after passage, as opposed to immediately in the original bill.

In addition to the revised bill, the Council next Tuesday will be considering a resolution to create the study and fact-finding group.

Council Chair Jay Furfaro, who thus far has avoided any public comment on the bill and directed the Council to pursue the amendments in a committee of which he is not a member, has asked the administration for a presentation on the “operational impacts” the bill would have on the county.

Yukimura and Nakamura are also asking the Council to consider releasing county attorney opinions on Bill 2491 and whether counties can legally restrict the use of atrazine.

The meeting starts at 8:30 a.m. and has a posted finish time of 1 p.m. — a cutoff that appears to limit public testimony, which has consumed many hours each time the bill comes before the Council.

E-mail: nnakamura@kauai.gov
Council Line: (808) 241-4098
Work Phone: (808) 822-0388
Fax: (808) 241-6349

Email: jyukimura@kauai.gov
Council Line: (808) 241-4092
Mobile Phone: (808) 652-3988
Fax: (808) 241-6349


.