WEF 09-Climate Justice: Basis of a New Global Solidarity

Photos

WEF 09-Climate Justice: Basis of a New Global Solidarity

see larger image

uploaded by Patricia Turo

There are great hopes for the Copenhagen conference.  There is also relief and hope now that the US is back in the discussion.  The session on Climate Justice left a lot of questions open and the answers are not easy or clear.

Panelists:

Kofi Annan, President, Global Humanitarian Forum, Geneva Switzerland

Bharrat Jagdeo, President of Guyana

Raf Singh, Chief Risk Officer, Swiss Reinsurance Company, Zürich

Howard Dean III, Head of the National Democratic Party, USA

Moderator: Hannes Britschgi, Director Editor & Chief of the Sonntagsblick, Switzerland

Fifty percent of pollution comes from the US, EU, China, India and Japan, the rest are bearing the brunt. For example the Maldives are looking for a new country to buy because of high waters levels.

Kofi Annan says climate change is having an impact today on the planet.  Fifty percent of people live in coastal areas and they are at risk.

We need a system that has equity and a robust agreement such as the one in Copenhagen. Polluters should pay their fair share of the cost; that is climate justice. Pressure has to be kept on by us to make that happen. Future development must be sustainable.

Bharrat Jagdeo says the 3rd world countries should get on the agenda of G7 because people need to put pressure on governments. They must look to needs of developing world as well as underdeveloped world to solve this problem.

The Kyoto agreement has $400M for development for the whole world and this is not even enough for my own country. Countries have the challenge, but don’t have the money for their needs. A fraction of the sum we are spending on the financial crises would be enough to deal with the world pollution problem.  A raise of 2º F would cause catastrophe for the world. Less then 1% of the worlds GDP would be enough to address the problem. 

Howard Dean- The Obama administration will take a very different approach on this issue and there is already some evidence that it is already taking place. President Obama has just changed the law in the US that allows each State to set its own auto admission limits. Many States have better standards then the Federal Governments requirements. This was not allowed under the Bush Administration.

Moral commitment will not move the world, there has to be an economic approach. The behavior of consumer does have an impact. Pressure by the young generation to solve this problem must continue to force our generation to do what has to be done. 

A huge shift is taking place, the US and Russia will see their influence decrease.

Conditions of the market have changed and on climate change the Europeans will lead and that is a good thing. There are great hopes for Copenhagen. The Europeans have led the way and will probably continue to do so.

Everyone has to contribute. Countries such as India and China whose pollution continues to increase and will become greater then the US at some point must contribute. Whether it is carbon offset or carbon tax it is inescapable.  Maybe there are different systems to pay for it but there has to be an economic price.

People will watch the US on what we do not just what we say. Other countries such as India should not make the same mistakes. They should learn from the developed countries. The Olympics have had a huge benefit on human rights in China and also on the issue of pollution. We must make sure that lessons learned are considered by developing countries.

There is no right to pollute. The public will have to force governments to make the tough decisions. There are conflicting problems such as competition, water, social problems, medical and healthcare etc. Resources have to be spent on these things also. So we have to focus on the big issues where huge savings can be made.

Bharrat Jagdeo- It is a good thing that America is back in the fold and willing to make a contribution to solving climate change.

Poor countries have a huge discrepancy in quality of life. How do we sell the story to them?  They were not the cause of this and now others are adding to the problem.  How do we deliver a better life to poor countries? Poverty is a great polluter, it is important that they don’t make the same mistakes as developed countries and they must learn from our mistakes. Aligning the priorities of poor countries to the need of climate change is a big political task.

It boils down to equating the right to pollute. Economic aspects, ethics and morals are the dynamics of the situation. There has to be social and economics answers.

Changes in technology and innovation will be huge and money will be made from these developments and innovations. These issues must be confronted in Copenhagen.

Raf Singh -Economics matter, insurance losses have increased enormously. Mitigation and adaptation and building standards are being changed. Should countries risk evaluation drive the discussion.

There has to be progress with private/public partnerships and bring capital responsibility. $50-170B a year is need in a fund to deal with the problem and we have to find a way to fund this. Also what other ideas can be found to address the problem. How can you get the world lenders to create a new agreement to replace Kyoto?

Kofi Annan- All countries are responsible. Financial crises, climate change, individual countries priorities, energy, security have their costs also. How do you tell the planet to wait, climate change can’t wait. We have to have a rational approach. Big business has to know that they can’t get away with continuing to pollute without consequences, it has to work with governments.

Bharrat Jagdeo stated that we can’t blame the poor for wanting a better life. Developed countries have to find alternatives to offset the costs to developing countries. We must give assistance to countries to use new technology, if we don’t they will use old polluting technology.  Offset taxes can provide an alternative and they can be verifiable with satellite and ground inspections.

Businesses who don’t want to follow the rules just move their business to other countries.  How do we set standards that prevent them from doing that? Copenhagen is trying to set standards that move across countries. It is not an ideal situation.