Edible Six-Pack Rings.

This is going to be a short post. Sometimes I stumble across some news which make me smile. Good news that are uplifting and this is one of them. Saltwater Brewery in Florida created new edible six-pack rings. This is great news because the common plastic that is used can choke marine life and birds when it ends up in the ocean. But in this particular case the people from the brewery have come up with an ingenious solution. Their edible rings are made of the leftovers from the brewing process, namely wheat and barley and are therefore 100% biodegradable and also serve as food for the animals. I know that this is a small step in the right direction by a small brewery. But I find such stories hugely inspiring and I do hope that it catches on to increase its impact. 

The State of Affairs

What have I been doing? Reading reading reading...

I am back after five months of blogging abstinence. I started a new job at the University of Cambridge in January, and couldn't blog 'as much' as I used to even though I have a very long commute that would allow me to write a few words. However, I decided to read during my train journey. So here is a brief update on my reading list for anyone who is interested:

• Me before you by Jojo Moyes - the perfect book after I handed in my master thesis. I wanted to read something light and easy where my brain could just relax and glide along with the easy narrative. Romantic and soppy love story. Perfect. 
• Stoner by John Edward Willimas - an absolute Must-Read! I am annoying everyone in my close proximity by telling them to read this marvelous, beautiful, touching book. 
• Us by David Nicholls - light entertainment, amusing and at times sad family story, but somehow not that captivating. 
• Hitch22 by the late Christopher Hitchens - not finished yet, but an interesting and an unexpected simple read by the famous writing and speech virtuoso, with details about his family that are quite surprising. Think what you want about Hitch, but he is a genious in terms of eloquence and sharpness.
• We are all made of glue by Marina Lewycka. A story about a woman living in London who is going through a breakup when she meets an old jewish lady in a supermarket. It was quite entertaining but the writing was at times too reliant on the stereotypical clichés of people with certain cultural backgrounds. 

 

Climate change adaptation

BUT, back to the important things. I returned here to write a few words about the state of affairs regarding our environment and the climate. To be honest, not much has changed since my last entry. Oh, yes, the nations who were at the COP21 discussion table signed the climate deal a few weeks ago on 22 April. 'Record breaking!' they called it. 'A historic day!' But still, Prince's death received more coverage. In all fairness, he was a legend. 

Albeit the less than enthusiastic coverage of the historic signing of the deal, there is a general sense of people slowly awakening to the increasing pressure of having to do something about these matters. This is especially highlighted by China, the largest GHG emitter, who was accused in the past of blocking negotiations and hijacking climate deal talks by then climate secretary Ed Milliband. China is finally looking to take big steps. Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli announced 'a lift of regulations and policies Beijing was rolling out to meet its goals, including a national carbon market in 2017, investment in forests and a network of “zero emission” projects'. 

I am very curious to see what the development is going to look like there. Finally their rigid centralist government structure can be used not only for silencing dissidents, changing and censoring information about their past BUT it could come in useful when implementing rigorous changes in energy consumption and waste management. No arguments between different parties if there is only one! I might oversimplify the situation but I am genuinely intrigued what they are going to do. Also in the light of them hosting the 2022 Winter Olympics in the north of Beijing. A region dry as the Gobi desert.

 

Too late?

But is all of this maybe a little too late? Have the years of CDM and JI mitigation efforts neglected real efforts in the area of meaningful and sustainable adaptation strategies, and only served as a tool for the developed nations to meet their GHG targets? I asked myself this question during the COP21 meetings and even more so after I read this recent article in the guardian titled: Climate change puts 1.3bn people and $158tn at risk, says World Bank - Organisation urges better city planning and defensive measures to defend against rapid rise in climate change-linked disasters.

The poorest nations will suffer the most from climate change induced disasters however at the same time they are the ones least equipped and prepared for what is coming. This is not big news. There are hundreds of articles and scientific papers out there that deal with this topic. There are, among other funds by NGOs, local governments and money from state level, two major money pots which are tied to the UNFCC framework: the Adaptation Fund and the Green Climate Fund. I have to admit I haven’t read too much about these two funds, hence I am not entirely sure why they exist side by side. It would be interesting to see in what way they differ from each other, or whether they cover the same issues which would be incredibly inefficient and another example of how everybody is talking about climate change and its urgency, and everybody is trying as hard as possible to appear busy combatting it, while their entire set of actions so far has been futile. 

Wikipedia, As an extremely low-lying country, surrounded by vast oceans, Kiribati is at risk from the negative effects of climate change, such as sea-level rise and storm surges.

As you can see, I am not too convinced about the process that we have seen up until now in terms of climate negotiations. I wrote in a previous post about the big hoorray!! that followed the COP21 in Paris and how I was quite reluctant to celebrate along since it has to be seen how all of the big promises and pledges will eventually play out and whether we are still looking at solely a row of lip services by different nations, because they know that there are no stringent set of rules and regulations in place that could lead to severe penalties if they do not meet their targets. 

 

Turning a blind eye 

There are several levels of inadequacies, inequalities and a huge amount of dishonesty in the arena of climate politics. There is a heap of evidence that big oil companies such as Exxon knew about anthropogenic climate change since the 80s but nothing was done about it. But they don't have to face any penalty, punishment, fee or even reputation loss for that matter. Or do you remember a major headline that went along the lines of Breaking News: EXXON LIED TO US FOR DECADES!!! - that kept journalists and news broadcasters busy. You know, as busy as they were when Britney had her complete meltdown, or when Kim Kardashian wore that gold, no blue dress. Nope. No such coverage for Exxon. I am not trying to bash mainstream media. If someone wants to know about Bieber's latest hairstyle, please by all means, read about it. But I feel we are being bombarded with highly irrelevant news on a daily basis, while the Earth and her climate is slowly but surely showing us her middle finger. Of course the media outlets report on issues they believe attracts most readers (apparently having Jennifer Aniston on the front page of women's magazines results in high numbers of readers). But money plays a vital role here too. Climate change deniers in politics who are backed by people such as the Koch Brothers are operating unchecked because - money. And they can influence major broadcasters too.  

'Reliable Source', by Seppo Leinonen, Flickr

Trump Trumpeter

And now we have Trump. I used to find this orange man with the impossible hairdo quite amusing, then I thought of him as a walking unfortunate embarrassment and now I feel that he is the personified amalgamation of everything that is wrong in this world. Corporate greed with a bully attitude, incredibly uninformed but driven by a hunger for success, prestige and profit. And the most worrying part? He finds support. He is a climate change denier par excellence attributed with all the well known rhetoric we know from them. And he is looking to appoint a fellow climate change denier as his energy minister should he become president. I still hope that the unlikely theory that he is actually a democrat in disguise, who is intentionally being as ridiculous and unvotable as possible, to allow a democrat to win is actually true. But it probably isn't the case. Alas! 

To come back to my initial question, 'what has happened while I was away?', it was a bit unfair to say 'not much'. If we look at developments that have nothing to do with governments and emission targets, I do see promising progress. Such as Elon Musk's electric cars that are becoming more affordable or a number of tech billionaires who came together to launch the breakthrough energy coalition, with the goal to invest in new clean energy start ups. 

Wikipedia, Musk standing in front of a Tesla Model S in 2011

I went to a public lecture called 'Effective Environmentalism' by Paul Ferraro, visiting Professor from Johns Hopkins University, in March this year which was followed by a panel discussion. The panelists were asked, which organisations are worth supporting if you want to help protecting the environment? The big ones such as WWF, or smaller NGOs? One of the panelists answered that in terms of impact, it is the bigger environmental organisations that can make a difference. BUT she added, their impact will never be as big as when one of the big international companies such as Unilever or Nestlé finally implements sustainable and climate friendly measures in their production and logistical processes. Once they decide to take meaningful steps to protect the environment and the climate, the impact will be considerably larger than the efforts made by any NGO. And they can, because they operate with huge sums of money, more money than any government or transnational organisation can come up with to combat climate change. So if there was only more willingness from the big corporate players to invest in clean energy. 

 

Finally...

So, while the big organisations are sticking to business as usual, governments around the world are busy trying to appear worried about the environment, while at the same time not wanting to upset the establishment, there are still some people who actually care. People who worry about biodiversity loss, who work in conservation, who implement climate offset projects around the world, who study ecology, atmospheric science and climatology, just to be confronted with idiotic, uninformed, biased climate change deniers. And then you have a new breed of billionaires. Young people, not pretentious, not driven by money or the idea of building a monument for themselves, but by their passion. And they do seem to care about the world and the people around them and want to engage in a more meaningful and sustainable way. I am not as foolish as to put all my hope in them, but I do believe having them on board on this very slow journey towards a greener future is a definitely a good thing. 

So things are moving in the right direction, governments are slowly but surely feeling the pressure, and some rich billionaires throw their money behind great projects, but it all seems a little too lat - at least for those who are already knee deep in the water. 

Voluntary carbon offset schemes: strengths and limitations

The voluntary offset market was created as an equivalent to the Clean Development Mechanism CDM offset projects with which they share some similarities. However the major difference is that the voluntary carbon market is targeted at the non-compliance market and detached from the emissions reduction targets set out for Annex 1 nations by the Kyoto Protocol. It is therefore a tool that allows individuals but also businesses to offset CO2 emissions that go beyond what has been prescribed by the Kyoto Protocol (Corbera, Estrada and Brown, 2009). Another major aspect that differs from the CDM mechanism is that the Voluntary Offset market focuses on projects that have strong social and environmental impacts with a high visibility of the benefits. Due to ‘complex and evolving regulations, regulatory inefficiencies, and capacity bottlenecks’ (World Bank, 2015) CDM projects become increasingly financially ineffective. ‘Delays and uncertainties lead to higher transaction costs, declining CER volumes, and lower market values’ (World Bank, 2015). By comparison, the voluntary offset scheme prioritize the social development aspect of their projects, thus, complicated processes, bureaucratic procedures and the aforementioned high transaction costs need to be minimized in order to maximize the development and social profits (Corbera, Estrada and Brown, 2009). However, these aims set out by the voluntary carbon mechanism are formulated in front of a backdrop of a complicated network of actors and regulations. This post will highlight the strengths and weaknesses through two steps. Firstly the most popular and widely used methodology is being analysed and evaluated for its effectiveness in achieving the set out goals in terms of mitigating GHG emissions. Secondly, I will assess the social development aspect and conceptualize the outcome by looking at it through a wide angle lens and by including the wider political, social and economic setting. 

Kolar Biogas Project in Karnataka, India. With the carbon offset project “Kolar Biogas Project“,
the myclimate foundation and its local partner SKG Sangha contribute to the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions and to less degradation of the forest (www.myclimate.org).

Linking climate change and development 

Climate change and global warming are problems on an international scale and the general notion is that those who emit the harmful greenhouse gases need to be the ones responsible for its mitigation. Hence, the focus should be on the industrialised nations in order to address this global threat. The Brundtland Report of 1987, followed by the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and finally the UNFCC all produced an increasing number of reports, which ‘link climate change and development, as well as human rights issues through concepts of justice, equity and international negotiations’ (Grist, 2008). This raises the question whether linking climate change and development is even possible or a good idea. The synergies that are being created through a pairing of the two disciplines could either be useful in fostering sustainable development or it could pose ‘potential clashes at the epistemological and methodological level’ (Grist, 2008). 

Former President of the Maldives, Nasheed said just before the COP15 in Copenhagen: ‘I am sure if China shows leadership, others will follow. After all, it is not carbon we want but development. It is not coal we want but electricity. It is not oil we want but transport. Low-carbon alternatives now exist, to provide every good and service that we need for development and prosperity. Developed countries created the climate crisis; developing countries must not turn it into a calamity’ (Randalls, 2015). This statement vividly portrays the dilemma developing countries find themselves in. On the one hand they are under pressure to catch up with the rest of the world in terms of economic growth and improving living standards for its citizens, while at the same time, having to rely on major developed nations and their rethinking about the use of renewable energy. Thanks to voluntary carbon markets, the focus on the social and sustainable development aspect will receive greater attention, however, it does not come without its restraints. As shown in figure 1, the major area of mitigation in the voluntary market is forestry which represents 36% market share of the voluntary market in 2006. Based on a closer investigation of forestry projects, which will also include an overview on the increasingly popular REDD+ mechanism, this I will evaluate the overall effectiveness of forestry projects and the voluntary market as a whole. 

Figure 1, Transactions of CO2e by project type in the voluntary OTC market in 2006.
Source: Hamilton et al., 2007.
P.26, as cited in Corbera, Estrada and Brown, 2009.

REDD+

‘Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, conserving and enhancing forest carbon stocks, and sustainably managing forests (REDD+) are emerging as a central policy instrument to halt land-use related emissions from developing countries’ (Corbera and Schroeder, 2011). The basic idea of REDD+ according to Corbera and Schroeder is to motivate developing countries to protect their forests and improve their management. This is done by introducing a monetary value to the carbon that the trees can store (Corbera and Schroeder, 2011). REDD+ enjoys increased popularity in the international climate change regime. On the website of the UN it says that the deforestation and forest degradation ‘account for nearly 20% of global GHG emissions, more than the entire global transportation sector and second only to the energy sector’ (Un-redd.org, 2015). Hence, in order to stay within the 2 degree Celsius target, the forest sector’s role is vital. 

One example of a REDD+ project is the Purus Project in Brazil. This particular project made into Project Portfolio of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Carbon Offsetting Programme where the project is described as ‘The Purus project in Brazil’s Acre Sate, home to the Amazon basin, aims to prevent the deforestation of just under 35,000 hectares of pristine rainforest. Working with 18 communities living along the Purus river, the project protects and conserves tropical forest by providing them financial support in return for cooperation to prevent further deforestation.’ (FIFA.com, 2015). The Purus Project is a prime example of a REDD+ project, which combines conservation efforts, carbon emission reduction and community inclusion as well as social benefit fostering. While this specific project is financed, by the NGO CarbonCo (a subsidiary of Carbonfund.org) (Carbonfund.org, 2015), funding for REDD+ projects has been addressed on a large scale during inter-governmental meetings in the past years and funding has become more widespread, coming from more varied sources. Major institutions such as the World Bank, the UN through its UN-REDD programme and individual countries such as Germany, UK, and Norway have set aside funds to assist developing countries in setting up their own REDD+ strategies and programmes (Reed, 2010 as cited in Corbera and Schroeder, 2011). Furthermore, a multi-country partnership, consisting of 16 developed and 40 developing countries, was set up to create wider access to technical and financial resources in the REDD+ field, which should benefit developing countries (www.oclocfc2010.no as cited in Corbera and Schroeder, 2011). Later a major step towards better funding was made during the COP 19 in Warsaw: ‘U.N. negotiators on Friday agreed rules on financing forest projects in developing nations, paving the way for multi-billion dollar investments from governments, funding agencies and private firms in schemes to halt deforestation’ (Foundation, 2015). Those reports could lead to the assumption that with REDD+ the international community did finally find a common denominator, which everybody agrees to have sustainable and comprehensible results that benefit the environment as well as the local communities. However, REDD+, or voluntary offsets in forestry projects in general are in fact more controversial than other methodologies because they are being accused of frequent failure. Medilyn Manibo wrote in an article on the website Eco-Business that the REDD+ market is increasingly flagging and is looking for a financial injection over US$12 billion (Eco-Business, 2014). The article argues that REDD+ could suffer a similar fate as the UN’s CDM where demand for carbon credits has decreased steadily over the past years. It goes further to state that a slow-down in demand will lead to mitigation potential of forests becoming less relevant and what is supposed to be a major focal point in emission reduction, is suddenly being given less importance (Eco-Business, 2014). But how can a programme that seems to enjoy so much support be so prone to failure? One of the main reasons is the danger of oversupply. REDD+’s ambitions and the market it operates in do not concur. According to Manibo, REDD+ is looking to reduce the yearly deforestation figures down to 50 per cent by 2020 resulting in a hypothetical demand level that is able to absorb 9,9000 MtCO2. However, realistically, we are looking at market potentials of approximately 253 MtCO2 according to a report by the Interim Forest Finance Project. This falls short by a staggering 97% of the target, which is far from viable (Eco-Business, 2014). Nick Oakes, Finance Programme Manager of the Global Canopy Programme, mentioned, that the gap between supply and demand needs to be closed. However, this will only start happening ‘after the UN convention on climate change signs a deal that will implement a global compliance market’ (Eco-Business, 2014). Something that is only going to happen in the year 2020, that is, if it is going to happen at all. 

Governance issues

This leads to the next critique point, which concerns the voluntary market as a whole, namely its lack of common legislation, rules and verification. There is no authority that oversees the voluntary market. Instead an array of standards, verification procedures and a number of registries operate in this market. With the voluntary market as a whole being increasingly complex and difficult to monitor and control, the REDD+ mechanism in itself is a rather convoluted system ‘with multiple actors, interests and activities, involving several sources of formal and informal power and authority (UN bodies, multilateral organisations, governments, but also community and indigenous organisations), which all influence each other and may or may not coincide in their interests and vision regarding how such strategy of forest and climate governance should actually look like in the near future’ (Corbera and Schroeder, 2011). Hence, REDD+ was described by Estrada as being unattractive for business in the private sector, due to its complexity and opaque participation and benefit sharing arrangements (Estrada, 2010 as cited in Corbera and Schroeder, 2011). 

Having discussed the topic of voluntary carbon markets and especially the specific case of REDD+ at length from a market economy perspective, I now want to turn to the local community, evaluate their role in this scheme and answer some questions regarding the ethical and behavioural dimensions of voluntary offsets. 

‘The rush to make profits out of carbon fixing engenders another kind of colonialism’ (Centre for Science and the Environment, India as cited in Bachram, 2004). Bachram argues in her article that we are experiencing a very serious turning point in terms of global atmosphere and CO2 levels and that a lot is being talked about, but what is being actually done is very prone to misuse, which she terms as ‘climate fraud’. It needs to be noted that the article was written 13 years ago and the voluntary carbon market and carbon trading underwent some changes since then, however, the major claims still stand. I will firstly look at the direct claim that the developed north is practicing what Bachmann refers to as ‘Carbon Colonialism’. It is important to note that climate change and global warming even though it does affect the whole planet, takes place in an unequal world. Unequal in terms of political, economic and social structures and we need to clearly differentiate between survival emissions versus luxury emissions. In other words: CO2 might take on different meanings in different contexts. Every developed nation has become a developed nation by going through industrialisation and emitting a vast amount of GHG in the process. It could be argued that by restricting developing nations from doing the same, there is a form of top-down, north-south carbon colonialism. The lack of options to go through industrialisation is the exact reason why the poor countries remain underdeveloped.  If poor countries want to address inequalities and catch up with the rest of the world, chopping down trees in order to boost their economy, like for example in Brazil where vast parts of the forests were cleared for livestock, is becoming necessary. So we basically find ourselves in a catch 22 situation where we try to battle something by reducing the activity, which would actually be helping to solve the issue (even though in a very unsustainable way). This begs the question whether there is an alternative to industrialization for countries to lift themselves out of poverty. 

Carbon Colonialism

Debates about the behavioural framing of climate change and voluntary offsets play a vital role in understanding why there is such a clear divide between the north and the south. We already touched on the critique of carbon colonialism and the accusation that the north is putting systems in place which dictate to the southern regions how to take care of their environment, however, carbon mitigation projects do nothing to bring about a change in behavioural patterns around the globe. A crass example of this stance is FACE International, an entrepreneurial company, which According to Bachram, are heading plantation projects while at the same time stating that a behavioural change is not needed and the problem can be solved my merely planting trees in the south (Bachram, 2004). It is easy to see how problematic such an approach is, especially in the climate change debate which is often described as a tragedy of the commons. While certain resources can be more easily managed, elements such as water or air are more difficult to manage. One rather important example of a country’s self-interest was the US, which during the George W. Bush legislation, pulled out of their Kyoto obligations, because the negative economic impact which adherence to the CO2 emission targets would have on the US’s economy, would inevitably lead to layoffs of workers and drastically increase consumer prices (Hulme, 2009, p. 109). These conflicts of interests are comprehensible, however, we do not know exactly how much the costs will be of climate change induced natural disasters on a social and economic level. Those costs could outweigh any costs of measures that need to be taken now. In the light of countries acting in their self-interest, it becomes clearer, why voluntary carbon offsetting poses an attractive alternative to actually having to agree to binding measures set out by inter-governmental organisations. There is a notion of acknowledging the responsibility the developed world has towards developing countries, and we feel a moral obligation to help, however, rather than changing our own behavioural pattern, or risking to hamper economic growth, environmental governance in the southern hemisphere appears to be a more viable course of action. The topic of governance already came up once in this essay in relation to REDD+ projects, however it applies to other climate mitigation projects both in CDM schemes and voluntary markets. Those projects aim to influence the relations local societies have with their environment and the governance of those projects include various levels of stakeholders, from NGOs to local governments, and most importantly, the local societies. ‘Such governance perspective emphasizes the interrelated and increasingly integrated system of formal and informal rules, rule-making systems and actor networks at all levels of governance that are set up to steer societies towards preventing, mitigating and adapting to global and local environmental change’ (Corbera and Schroeder, 2011). Implementing projects such as installations of efficient cook stoves in villages or encouraging communities to use energy saving lamps or solar energy to light their huts represents a radical attempt to re-orientate local behaviour which is traditionally considered to be harmful and backwards. By linking those changes to social benefits, nobody argues against them and everybody welcomes the new technologies. Whereas behavioural changes in the polluting, industrialized nations are being rather moderate where we are being gently nudged in the right direction, through adverts by government agencies, NGOs or even on a smaller scale, by suggestions from friends or family. Living a green life has almost become synonymous to living a healthy life and has mutated into a lifestyle choice.

Conclusion

It can be said that beyond all the debates regarding responsibility and ethical as well as moral aspects of voluntary carbon emissions, it can clearly not be the solution to climate change, and no one would argue that it is. However, at the same time, those small scale attempts on mitigating CO2 emissions should not be dismissed based on their limitations of CO2 volumes they avoid, or because of the current lack of an overarching authority that regulates and controls the market and labels. There is still a great deal of work to do in order to make the voluntary market more efficient and transparent. But despite all the drawbacks, the benefits they bring to the local communities cannot be denied. While CDM projects claim to bring about new sustainable development it is often questioned whether the funds that are supposed to go to the poorest countries are actually reaching their destination. Whereas voluntary offset projects, precisely because of their small size, have the ability to reach the communities much more directly. If there is supposed to be serious attempts in tackling climate change, the approach needs to come from a different angle. Governments in both developed and developing countries need to step up their game and move away from the soft paternalism approach and become more credible in their attempts at tackling the climate change. Complex scenarios that have been so far rather confusing and neglected need to be more clearly evaluated, such as the case of for example a British company producing goods in China and the question of who is responsible for the emissions. Even though climate change is a tragedy of the commons, it cannot be expected that nations agree on this and act accordingly. The self preservation and economic growth is still paramount for any government. Therefore a more radical approach that steers the behavioural and consumption patterns of people in a more sustainable direction, without hampering economic growth, is essential (see for example Germany), while at the same time small scale project are just as vital for the local communities’ improved living standards in developing countries. 

References

Bachram, H. (2004). Climate fraud and carbon colonialism: the new trade in greenhouse gases.Capitalism Nature Socialism, 15(4), pp.5-20.

Carbonfund.org, (2015). The Purus Project A Tropical Forest Conservation Project. [online] Available at: http://carbonfund.org/reforestation-and-avoided-deforestation/item/2743-acre-brazil-redd-forestry-projects [Accessed 4 May 2015].

Corbera, E. and Schroeder, H. (2011). Governing and implementing REDD+. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(2), pp.89-99.

Corbera, E., Estrada, M. and Brown, K. (2009). How do regulated and voluntary carbon-offset schemes compare?. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 6(1), pp.25-50.

Eco-Business, (2014). REDD+ needs $12 billion boost to avoid failure: report. [online] Available at: http://www.eco-business.com/news/redd-needs-12-billion-boost-avoid-failure-report/ [Accessed 4 May 2015].

FIFA.com, (2015). Sustainability - FIFA.com. [online] Available at: http://www.fifa.com/sustainability/index.html [Accessed 4 May 2015].

Foundation, T. (2015). UN agrees multi-billion dollar framework to tackle deforestation. [online] Trust.org. Available at: http://www.trust.org/item/20131122133817-l7kq9/?source=dpagehead [Accessed 4 May 2015].

Foundation, T. (2015). UN agrees multi-billion dollar framework to tackle deforestation. [online] Trust.org. Available at: http://www.trust.org/item/20131122133817-l7kq9/?source=dpagehead [Accessed 4 May 2015].

Grist, N. (2008). Positioning climate change in sustainable development discourse. Journal of International Development, 20(6), pp.783-803.

Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Randalls, S. (2015). Climate Change as a Development Issue.

Un-redd.org, (2015). UN-REDD Programme -- About REDD+. [online] Available at: http://www.un-redd.org/AboutREDD/tabid/102614/Default.aspx [Accessed 4 May 2015].

World Bank, (2015). State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2010. Washington D.C.: Carbon Finance, p.47.

Climate change contextualized - globalisation and inequality

Climate change has emerged as a serious issue, recognized by international politics. The latest periodic assessment reports from 2014, released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC, paints a rather gloomy image of what is to come. Section A of the report titled ‘Observed Impacts, Vulnerability, and Adaptation in a Complex and Changing World’ clearly states that ‘differences in vulnerability and exposure arise from non-climatic factors and from multidimensional inequalities often produced by uneven development processes. These differences shape differential risks from climate change.’ (IPCC, 2014). While throughout history societies have never been equal with equal rights and opportunity for everybody, globalization has had a major effect on the increase of inequality between the rich and the poor, especially in developing countries. This essay will highlight the linkages between climate change, globalization and security and conceptualize the empirical evidence in order to get a more comprehensive view of the issue at hand.

Globalization and climate change

This leads to the first topic that I want to address, which is how globalization fuels climate change and how this is noticeable across the planet. With the onset of the Industrial Revolution in 1760 (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014) the way goods were produced underwent a drastic change, the scale of production was completely transformed and international trade increased hundredfold. In addition to economic changes the population grew exponentially from one billion to six billion people over the course of the Industrial Revolution (Matthew, 2010). This posed an extreme strain on the environment, which was exploited without cease for natural resources to boost production. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution natural resources were harvested on an increasingly more rigorous manner thanks to the invention of new techniques and the use of modern technology. Combined with an ever increasing number of people on the planet, the scale of consumption as well as of pollution, sky-rocketed over the past three centuries. ‘High-energy societies have caused large decrease in primary forest cover; biodiversity losses; depletion of fish stocks; land degradation; water pollution and scarcity; coastal marine degradation; the contamination of people, plants, and animals by chemicals and radioactive substances; and climate change sea-level rise. These environmental changes are “global” because they are ubiquitous and because some pollutants such as greenhouse gases and radioactive wastes have global consequences.’ (Turner et al. 1990, as cited in Matthew, 2010). In this new global scale of production and consumption the place where the products are being used or consumed are not identical with the place of origin of the product anymore. According to figures by the United Nations Development Programme, ‘the wealthiest 20 percent of the world’s population consumes 84 percent of all paper, consumes 45 percent of all meat and fish, and owns 87 percent of the world’s vehicles’ (UNDP 1998, as cited in Matthew, 2010). Furthermore, over half of all CO2 emissions emitted between 1990 and 1999 were caused by the USA and the EU (Baumert and Kete 2001, as cited in Matthew). Those figures clearly represent the great disparity that opened up after the dawn of the Industrial Revolution among nations and societies. The disparity does not only concern the consumption pattern, but also the burden of environmental degradation and climate change effects that people suffer. 

Natural hazards and climate change

This leads to the next question, namely how to manage potential risks that stem from climate change and adverse weather events that result from it and eventually, how to prepare for potential natural hazards accordingly. With the increasing awareness of the severity of climate change and the possible impacts on the environment and local populations, the risks have turned into a topic that is being discussed under the umbrella of security framings, which the Copenhagen School of Security has named the ‘Securitization of Climate Change’ (Oels, 2013). According to the Copenhagen School of Security a successful securitization reflects the failure of any attempt by democratic political measures to deal with climate change (Weaver, 1995 as cited in Oels, 2013). This would mean that a new gate would be opened that leads to very dramatic and costly security measures, such as decarbonisation, which implies a ‘political state of exception where democratic procedures may be circumvented and the law suspended.’ (Brauch, 2009 as cited in Oels, 2013). However, the securitization of climate change is believed to have failed, since no severe actions or policy changes could be observed as direct result of discourse shift and not extreme or extraordinary measure were taken. 

The actions and measures that are needed, should prevent humankind from reaching the tipping point of climate change, a point that leads to another state - a transition that is not always noticeable and is irreversible. In the case of climate change, it means that the world as we know will undergo drastic transformations and certain parts of the planet will become completely uninhabitable. Since we are close to reaching the tipping point according to climatologists, (or, according to certain scientists, we have already passed the tipping point) we need to consider what risks we are actually facing and what measures we need to take. Trying to reduce CO2 emissions in developing countries in order to stop global warming is definitely important to keep the greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere under a certain threshold level, however, the effects of the greenhouse gases that have already been emitted over the past centuries can already be felt and seen across the globe. The droughts in parts of Africa that I mentioned in the beginning, and that lead to feuds and deaths among tribes, are a prime example of climate change risks that cause social and local unrest and suffering. But the effects can also be seen on a larger scale, like for example during Hurricane Kathrina in 2005. Even though there is no official clear statement that the hurricane was caused by climate change, the Times wrote in 2005 that ‘One especially sobering study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that hurricane wind speeds have increased about 50% in the past 50 years. And since warm oceans are such a critical ingredient in hurricane formation, anything that gets the water warming more could get the storms growing worse. Global warming, in theory at least, would be more than sufficient to do that. While the people of New Orleans may not see another hurricane for years, the next one they do see could make even Katrina look mild.’ (TIME.com, 2005). Extreme weather events can not only lead to major destruction of infrastructures and cost the lives of hundreds of people in a single event, it can also have long term effects like food shortages due to draughts that can destabilize whole regions. Climate change will cause states to become weaker, and already weak states to fail and being unable to sustain their borders causing large migration of climate refugees. Figure 1 shows current border barriers and a clear pattern can be seen between industrialized and developing countries. While the developed world which is responsible for the majority of the greenhouse gases continue to consume a large proportion of the goods produced globally, the developing world is increasingly cut off by barriers and fences, and therefore prevented from entering wealthier nations.   

Teichopolitics and national threats

Figure 1, Border barriers, a world map. 

Source Habiter Laboratory, 2010

Teichopolitics plays a crucial role in controlling the circulation of people. ‘Organising circulation, eliminating its dangers, making a division between good and bad circulation, and maximizing the good circulation by eliminating the bad’ (Foucault 2007, as cited in Aradau, Claudia and Blanke, Tobias 2010). Referring to medieval ages when city walls would control the flow of people, animals and goods through the centuries, city walls have become state borders and the main concern of the regulation of the circulation is due to potential threats in the form of terrorism, spread of diseases and illegal immigration. Preempting suspicious movements and the management through contingency is applied in order to guarantee a good circulation (Aradau, Claudia and Blanke, Tobias 2010). 

Refugee camp of Somalians west of Massawa, Eritrea. Photo by Reinhard Dietrich.

One major concern for the US government is the threat of radicalization in weakened states, especially in the Middle East. Fanatic clerics and leaders could use this opportunity to blame the ‘West’ for water shortage in the dry region and fuel resentment towards the western nations (Ingram, 2015). Dillon wrote about risk groups which are unfit for adaptive emergence that will emerge after disasters and who are considered to be ‘dangerous’ to the stability to regions due to chaotic coping strategies, mass migration and violent conflict over resources. This can be linked to Bigo’s banopticon dispositive in which the profiling of ‘dangerous’ populations is deployed through modern technology and science, in order to achieve a care free, perfect future. Groups of people who are considered to be vulnerable are at the same time labelled as a risk group and therefore also considered to be dangerous which means that they need to be put under surveillance and profiled (Oels, 2010) 

The New York Times reported in October, 2014 that the Pentagon described climate change as an ‘immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages.’ (Davenport, 2014). Furthermore Davenport mentions how the military disaster response will have to react to an increasing number of global humanitarian crises and extreme weather events (Davenport, 2014). In another example, the Centre for Naval Analyses stated in one of their reports that Climate Change is ‘acting as a “threat multiplier” for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world and identifies key challenges that must be planned for now if they are to be met effectively in the future’ (Cna.org, 2015). This represents what Angela Oels referred to when she wrote about the climatization of security rather than the securitization of climate change, because States have been gradually preparing for the worst case scenarios (Oels, 2013) even though there have not been any major policy adaptations. The way that climate change is treated in the security discourse has undergone a shift and Oels is drawing heavily on Foucault’s frameworks in order to explain this new paradigm. Oels take on the new framing of security and climate change is particularly interesting since it delivers new insights in climate change politics through a Foucauldian perspective of governmentality. She uses his theory in order to conceptualize Risk Management in relation to climate change and investigates how far the security framing has moved since Foucault’s death with new concepts such as Dillon’s risk management through contingency or Aradau and van Munster’s precautionary risk management. Dillon argues that ‘life has undergone substantial changes in the 25 years since Foucault’s death (Dillon and Lobo-Guerrero, 2008, as cited in Oels, 2013) and therefore the traditional Foucauldian take on risk management is not contemporary anymore. The major argument of Dillon’s risk management through contingency and Aradau and van Munster’s Precautionary Risk Management is that, unlike the traditional risk management promoted by Foucault, their approaches perceive scientific knowledge as unreliable and therefore take political discussions and decision-making at the limits of science. This leads us into the territory of knowledge creation and the debate on whether climate data, or any other scientific date for that matter, is 100 percent accurate or just an accumulation of models and predictions, without any ‘real data’. This is a large thematic field in itself but I just want to emphasise the most important aspects. Edward wrote in his book on climate models and predictions A Vast Machine: ‘When we want to evaluate the security issues associated to climate change, it is important to consider how risks are presented. Are they knowable, calculable by science? The role of science play an important role in decision/making as does the creation of climate data’ (Edwards, 2010). Finding scientific data is one side of the story, however, the presentation, interpretation and dissemination of the data and the related risks is another crucial aspect.  If we look back at the different risk management framings, we can say that in Dillon’s risk management through contingency concept, climate change is a risk we have to adapt to and learn to live with. Furthermore, Dillon argues that there is a price attached to risks and it can be traded and speculated – we can “underwrite security” (Dillon, 2008, as cited in Oels, 2013). In the traditional form of risk management, represented by Foucault, climate change is a risk that needs to be kept at a tolerable level and this can only be achieved through global management. Lastly, precautionary risk management advocates that climate change will lead to catastrophic irreversible outcomes and poses a major risk and needs to be avoided at all costs (Oels, 2013). Thus, before there can be any agreed upon measure on how to address risks, there is a lack of the basic notion of what risks actually are. The traditional risk management concept was adopted by the IPCC (O’Brien, et al. 2007, as cited in Oels, 2013) and there was a strong focus on the vulnerability aspect of the states that are most affected by future regional climatic changes. 

Living in a world of uncertainties

Climate change can have various devastating effects, however, those who are affected the most by all of those impacts, are the ones labelled as unfit for adaptive emergence and considered as potentially dangerous populations. Predictions about which parts of the world will be affected the most and which populations are being hit the hardest is down to new technologies. Climate change model predictions, will most likely support and enforce Bigo’s Banopticon theory of monitoring certain groups of people. Since we cannot be entirely sure which groups of people pose a definite risk, even with the use of modern technology, we are confronted with the question of how to act and make decisions in a world of uncertainties. As I already noted, scientific data is limited, and cannot hold all answers or guarantee complete security. There has already been major progress in the climate change debate and we do have a general consensus on the fact that climate change is anthropogenic. However, we do still live in a, what Ulrich Beck calls, ‘risk society’. As Beck describes it: “The greatest military power in history shields itself with an anti-missile defence system costing billions of dollars. Is it not also a bitter irony that this power should be struck to the heart of its security and self-confidence by an action that was utterly improbable according to every logic of risk, when suicide terrorists succeeded in turning commercial passenger aircraft into rockets, which destroyed symbols of American world power? The irony of risk here is that rationality, that is, the experience of the past, encourages anticipation of the wrong kind of risk, the one we believe we can calculate and control, whereas the disaster arises from what we do not know and cannot calculate. (Beck, 2006).

Conclusion

Beck states that we basically live in a state of total unawareness of the risks that surround us, however I argue that scenarios can be anticipated and we can prepare for them accordingly. ‘Scenario planning has emerged as a new source of knowledge for dealing with the uncertainties and the ‘unknown unknowns’ of climate change (Schwartz and Randall, 2003 as cited in Oels, 2013). Furthermore I contend that the debate on whether the level of risk perception is accurate or not, is made redundant by the sheer lack of inadequacy of current climate mitigation talks and policies which are mostly non-binding. Another danger is that even though it is common knowledge that climate data and scientific research cannot cover all bases and deliver absolutely accurate data, international debates rely too much on expressions such as tipping point or the 2 degree target which were formulated in order to have a specific goal in the mitigation attempts of states. Both the tipping point and the 2 degree target are inherently vague and it leads to the impression that scientists have managed to figure out the levels up to which it is safe to release greenhouse gases.  Eventually it all comes down to basic questions about human and equal rights. The train of actions such as the teichopolitics measures that climate change is triggering is furthering and increasing any pre-existing gap in societies and among states. I argue that the debates need to go beyond lip services of nations. While climate change is becoming more and more destructive to this planet, everything is being done to keep the wealthiest few percent in the safe zone and comfortable, while those who did not gain anything from globalization are now being shut out and left to fend for themselves, and expected to deal with the environmental degradation on their own. The rights to clean air, clean water for everybody is being questioned, and the debate about climate change and security is being taken into a different dimension because it has now become a human rights issue.

References

Aradau, Claudia and Blanke, Tobias (2010). Governing circulation: A critique of the biopolitics of security. In: de Larrinaga, Miguel and Doucet, Marc G. eds. Security and Global Governmentality: Globalization, Governance and the State. London: Routledge

Beck, U. (2006). Living in the world risk society. Economy and Society, 35(3), pp.329-345.

Climate & Capitalism, (2011). Review: Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence - Climate & Capitalism. [online] Available at: http://climateandcapitalism.com/2011/09/14/tropic-of-chaos-climate-change-and-the-new-geography-of-violence/ [Accessed 9 Apr. 2015].

Cna.org, (2015). National Security and the Threat of Climate Change | CNA Corporation. [online] Available at: https://www.cna.org/reports/climate#sthash.dI4CIlEe.dpuf [Accessed 14 Apr. 2015].

Davenport, C. (2014). Pentagon Signals Security Risks of Climate Change. The New York Times. [online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/pentagon-says-global-warming-presents-immediate-security-threat.html?_r=0 [Accessed 9 Apr. 2015].

Edwards, P. (2010). A vast machine. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Encyclopedia Britannica, (2014). Industrial Revolution. [online] Available at: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/287086/Industrial-Revolution [Accessed 14 Apr. 2015].

Ingram, A. (2015). GEOGG089 Globalisation and Security.

Ingram, A (2015), Border Barriers, a world map, Image, GEOGG089 Globalisation and Security, University College London

IPCC, 2014: Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts,Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1-32.

Matthew, R. (2010). Global environmental change and human security. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Oels, A. (2010). Preparing for a +4 degree world: A Foucaultian reading of the 'securitization' of climate change.

Oels, A. (2013). Rendering climate change governable by risk: From probability to contingency. Geoforum, 45, pp.17-29.

RUSI, (2007). Margaret Beckett on Climate Change. [online] Available at: https://www.rusi.org/events/past/ref:E464343E93D15A/info:public/infoID:E4643430E3E85A/ [Accessed 9 Apr. 2015].

TIME.com, (2005). Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. [online] Available at: http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1099102,00.html [Accessed 14 Apr. 2015].

Cleantech - our white knight or a utopian dream?

Cleantech has been discussed frequently in recent years and with Bill Gates' announcement to create a billion dollar fund for cleantech, I wanted to unravel the truths and myths behind it and analyze whether we are experiencing the dawn of a new era of clean energy. 

To start off - what is cleantech? According to the Clean Technology Trade Alliance it can be described as: A broad base of processes, practices and tools, in any industry that supports a sustainable business approach, including but not limited to: pollution control, resource reduction and management, end of life strategy, waste reduction, energy efficiency, carbon mitigation and profitability. This description taps into various fields of environmental and climate protection which begs the question of how feasible it is and what the actual implementation looks like. Could it potentially have a big positive impact on the planet's energy consumption and make a huge difference in GHG emission figures, or is it just wishful thinking by some bright minds, but who lack the means to put their ideas into practice? An amalgamation of good intentions, and green solutions, but without the necessary funding, that would allow it to have the capacity to operate on a larger scale? 

In 2008, cleantech companies were sprouting everywhere and huge amounts of venture capital from companies, most notably companies at Sand Hill Road, were invested in new innovative ideas. But, after a a lot of hype, high hopes and positive prospects, in 2014 CBS aired a piece on their 60 minutes segment that announced "The Cleantech Crash". 

What had happened? How did 60 minutes decide that this is the end of cleantech, when the market was still going strong? One major problem was that the segment focused almost exclusively on the Silicon Valley and venture capital that was lost by those companies. According to Joe Romm of www.thinkprogess.org, the cleantech sector was "booming by every key indicator" by the time the 60 minutes video was aired. He argued that just like in any other new industry, there will be winners and losers among those who invest capital, and he further stated that the CBS piece failed to understand and recognize the actual successes of this new industry, while solely focusing on the failures.

So how does the market look today? In April of this year, Rob Day at Techcrunch.com wrote an interesting article, announcing the resurrection of cleantech in his article "Cleantech is dead, long live cleantech". Cleantech was looked at as a beacon in a world where profit making is seldom linked to doing something good for the environment or society. However it got so overhyped, that the absence of the profits the venture industry hoped for, led to great disappointment and  investors turning their back to new cleantech projects. And not to forget, this all happened during a time when global markets were hit by the financial crash. But now in 2015, the cleantech market has undergone a transformation which makes the distinction between 'normal' tech start ups and cleantech enterpreneur rather blurred. As Rob Day described it: 

"The distinction between cleantech and tech is increasingly fuzzy and meaningless. So… entrepreneurs are indeed still excited about these markets. And mainstream VCs are indeed still investing in cleantech. They’re just not calling it as such, or defining it with the same subcategories. Instead, innovators and investors are defining the companies in terms of what they actually do."

The need for access to clean energy sources becomes increasingly more pressing and the involvement of governments and public funding for R&D becomes essential. This issue is also a key topic during the COP21 meetings in Paris that are taking place right now. While start up tech companies that have cleantech characteristics, such as Nest, which Rob Day mentioned in his Techcrunch article are definitely important, we do however need large scale initiatives and programmes. Initiative that bring together the necessary research for pure cleantech projects and the required large amount of funding to implement it are paramount, if we really want to enable large portions of the world's population to have access to clean energy. This is why Bill Gates' announcement is so important. He has the unique ability to bring together business heads, philanthropists and state leaders to agree on ways to improve energy efficiency and how to enable access to clean technology, while at the same time, being able to stem a large amount of the needed funding needed for R&D by himself. 

Source: "BillGates2012" by World Economic Forum - Flickr. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BillGates2012.jpg#/media/File:BillGates2012.jpg

The latest news from today is that Bill Gates officially launched his billion dollar initiative that include notable investors such as Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Alibaba CEO Jack Ma, and Virgin Group's Richard Branson just to name a few. Under the name of Breakthrough Energy Coalition this group of illustrious names' goal is to develop new tools to power the world. New research projects could for example be the hypothesised idea of artificial photosynthesis, using sunlight to produce liquid hydrocarbons that could replace fossil fuels. The key idea is to bring cleantech projects out of the labs, where they would most probably be shunned by a complacent energy sector, straight into the markets, backed by the wealthy investors. 

This new coalition seems to hit the nail on the head with this statement on their website: 

"The existing system of basic research, clean energy investment, regulatory frameworks, and subsidies fails to sufficiently mobilize investment in truly transformative energy solutions for the future. We can’t wait for the system to change through normal cycles."

We do indeed not have the luxury of time, that would allow us to wait until the conditions under the current systems and frameworks allow us to find new ways for clean energy. This coalition's approach seems daring, innovative and promising. Bill Gates announced on his blog that this is "A Big Win for Cheap, Clean Energy" and I think it is save to say that this move is a game changer and it brings a new dynamic into the COP21 conference.

Climate March London November 2015

A strong wind blew through London today. But it did not hold back the tens of thousands of people who came together to show the world their solidarity and their concern for this planet. I have taken some pictures from today's march to share with you. All in all, it was quite an amazing event, and even though we are dealing with a very serious and somber topic, seeing the sheer amount of people, the drumming and dancing, the singing and laughing, it gave me a feeling that all is not lost. Not as long as we have people in this world who truly care. I left the march in good spirit, but also a little emotional and I felt that we can do this. 

I do understand that tackling climate change is not a straightforward and simple task. Every slogan on the banners I saw today is the logic and sound solution to this planet's suffering. But climate change is obviously tied to a number of factors such as economic risks, no one wants to lose out in this world of competitiveness. I appreciate that there is a whole network of internal and foreign policies, as well as economic frameworks that need to be addressed and revisited, if we want political leaders to meet our call for reducing carbon emissions, our call for more investment in renewable energy and the demand to put an end to fracking. Political ties will be tested and there will be disagreements. However, there comes a point when you cannot hide behind any more excuses why nothing is being done. The complexity, unfairness and inefficiency of the global economic and political system, which we humans have brought about ourselves, should not be the reason for inactivity. The tragedy of the commons that we have witnessed for decades cannot continue any longer, because there will be a tipping point (which, according to some scientists, we did already pass) after which, we have no control over the situation anymore.

Politicians and big corporations are willfully only looking at the high costs of any action that would benefit the environment and combat climate change. As if any inaction would not cost us dearly once we reach a point of no return. A study, conducted by two research institutes at the London School of Economics stated that nations would benefit more than they would lose if they'd agree on ways on how to tackle climate change. Fergus Green who worked on this research paper made it very clear that the general idea that action on climate change is net-costly is wrong. 

So there is much hope for the COP21 which will kick off tomorrow. Much hope for carbon reduction agreements - binding agreements that is. For a clear message to the developing nations on what they can expect from the developed countries, and hopefully also new innovative ideas and agreements on investments in the field of cleantech. One pledge that has already been made comes from Bill Gates with his announcement to create a billion dollar fund for R&D in cleantech. An important step in the right direction. The road to a greener future is rocky and covered with obstacles. But now is the time to tackle them one by one, because there is simply no way around it. And today's amazing climate march in London, 50,000 voices strong, has sent a message to Paris which the world leaders cannot ignore.

Gallery:

Brazil's Doce River - disaster after dam collapses

Brazil's Doce River Is Full of Dead Fish
Dead fish and devastated fishermen: Brazil's Doce River after one of the worst mining disasters in the country's history.
Posted by AJ+ on Wednesday, November 25, 2015