Our Choice

So, Al Gore has just released his new book as a sequel to An Inconvenient Truth. A couple of days ago I did an entry on Timothy Luke’s critique of An Inconvenient Truth, which happens to be one of many around. In any case, if any of you were to pick up this book, I’d like to offer some guidelines as to how you may read it critically so that you are not “green washed” without knowing the political knowledge being deployed through such publications.

1. Anglo-American centricism: Look out for the context in which Al Gore has written about solving the climate crisis. We need to apply the solutions somehow to the Asia-Pacific context and better suit solutions to the developing world.

2. Gender: Males and females orientation of this world is different and women are generally more inclined to attach emotions to their actions. Usually such publications, because of its underlying political agenda, neglects to acknowledge the differences between genders or recognize other forms of genders.

3. Photos: Take a good look at the photos used in this publication if you pick it up. I bought An Inconvenient Truth publication because I wanted to take a better look at the photos shown by Al Gore on his slides in the film version. However, these photos are well deployed and used cleverly. We must learn to be critical of these photos and apply our understanding of natural climate change/glacial interchanges when looking at popularist films and videos like this. It is important to understand that photographers may be employed to take photos of a certain sort to represent climate crisis as urgent.

Having said this, it is not that the climate crisis isn’t urgent or that we should not embark on climate action today but that the media can often distort information and cause skepticism among the masses. Images of polar bears drowning is one such example. See the article below:

Polar bears would stand a greater chance of avoiding extinction if people stopped shooting them than if they reduced greenhouse gas emissions, according to a book by a leading environmental sceptic.

Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish professor who achieved international fame with his previous book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, examines and rejects claims by environmentalists and the former president Al Gore that polar bears are drowning because the sea ice they hunt on is melting.

Lomborg says the story about drowning bears is taken from a single sighting of four dead bears the day after an abrupt windstorm. The bears came from a population that was actually increasing, which has been the overall trend in the polar bear population since the 1960s.

He provides evidence that 11 out of 13 distinct populations of polar bears in Canada are either stable or increasing in number.

In his new book, Cool It: the Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming, he quotes a Canadian government biologist who said: “They are not going extinct or even appear to be affected at present.”

Prof Lomborg points out that over the past decades, the global polar bear population has increased dramatically from about 5,000 members in the 1960s to around 25,000 as a result of the regulation of hunting.

Even if a decline in the bear population has taken place since the 1980s, he says, if we try to help them by cutting greenhouse gases we can at the very best avoid 15 bears dying, with realistic option meaning that it is probably only around 0.06 bears per year.

But he says, if we care for stable populations of polar bears, dealing with the 49 polar bears from the same population around Hudson Bay that get shot each year might be a smarter and more viable strategy.

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3309397/Bjorn-Lomborg-Save-polar-bears-by-not-shooting-them.html)

Thus, we must remain critical of popularist notions of climate action and embark on real and material action today!

During every session, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC (in this case Mr Yvo De Boer) will have a session with the civil society on his point of view about the negotiation. Also an opportunity for the civil society and especially the major groups to share or seek clarification on what has happened so far or going to happen.

So for the session here in Barcelona, before the civil society session, the youth (with 350) and TckTckTck movement (under GCCA) decided to hand over a significant instruments to Yvo to remind him of the target we are asking for and how much time we have respectively.

It was a great picture opportunity as shown:

And thanks to Sena for scripting what happened during the session. The first part below is a sum up of what happened. And for those who has time, read further down below for a fuller transcript.

Happy Reading!

Warm Regards,

Wilson (From Barcelona…with Love)

————————————————-

In a Nutshell:

• I would have deserved to be attacked much more strongly
• but: I am not advocating to postpone, I am advocating to take all the decisions we can
• I cannot see how it is physically possible to craft a full legally binding treaty
• time in Copenhagen is constrained
• Denmark wants to have high level segment with head of states
• but that means: we will have to close the building on Thursday night (second week) for security check
• so: work has to be done by the end of Thursday
• on the other side: it’s good t
• not a fully fletched treaty
• I see: a set /package of decisions, as we have seen at COP6bis or in Montreal
• one overarching decision that sets a long-term goal, identifies key principles and is followed by 4 annexes:

o        first annex: with A1 reduction targets

o        second annexes: what will NA1 countries do

o        third annex: individual financial contributions

o        fourth annex: formula how costs will be shared in the future, so that this does not have to be renegotiated

• additionally: several individual COP decisions on the building blocks, which also flesh out the bodies to be established and the architecture of these institutions

o        this enables a fast start

• finally: a clause spelling out that negotiations on a legal instrument shall be concluded after X months
• these decisions will hold countries politically accountable

• IN THE KP track:

o        second commitment period, reductions targets of the COP decisions for Kyoto Parties will be mirrored in the KP amendments

LONG VERSION WRITTEN BY A FELLOW FROM CAN LEGAL

Wed 4.11.2009 Yvo with stakeholders

I’m happy that farmers are here. You have been kind with me in the Media. I deserve to be attacked much more strongly – my expectations for Copenhagen are now different than finalizing a legally binding treaty.

There’s a big difference in postponing a decision and taking a decision on what we can. I do not see how it is physically possible to craft a fully fledged legally binding treaty, and secondly our time in Copenhagen is constrained at the other end. Danes want a heads of state session in the end. That comes with a price, physical time price, we’ll have to close conference center Thursday night for security. The time of thu evening onwards is being taken.

What does pussy-footing amount to? What I see is a set of decisions: as we’ve seen in Montreal and COP-6 bis in Bonn, a packet of forward looking decision. Overarching decision that encompasses the BAP, long-term goal, targets, engagement, shared vision etc. That and 4 annexes: i) a list of individual reductions for developed countries for 2020 ii) reflection on what major developing countries are doing, what they put in place and how they deviate, x % iii) “start funding” and the actions done with that iv) formula of how the cost of adaptation and mitigation are divided among developing countries (Montreal Protocol type). Decisions that describe how the possible new bodies function.

All of this should be negotiated into a legally binding instrument by 20XX.

Under the KP: a decision which would constitute second period. Photocopy targets from LCA into this. Operational continuation of the KP: it took 8 years for the entry into force, we cannot wait a new period like that.

“You can also play like LCA COP decisions are legally binding and have entered into force before they actually are, there are options there.”

Out of Barcelona an indication on what the package could look like. Effective heads of state level usage. Set of decisions. Firstly, the G77 is not ready for a new instrument under the Convention. Secondly, US legislation will not finalize before Copenhagen. Set of decisions will help the parties to see how the legally binding treaty would function, it is transitional period.

David: politically accountable, what is your definition? Politically binding does not mean much, we feel.

In my country soft drugs are illegal, but you can buy them in shops. Public spending is limited by law…but they are being crossed all over in EU. And there is a prime minister who has issued non-compliance with KP, but I haven’t seen his picture in a search warrant in airports.

Politically binding is meaningless legally, but politically, in accountability of politicians, it can mean a lot.

Gender text in shared vision?

Trade unions are deeply disappointed if there’s no legal treaty. We try to persuade coal dominant areas…participation of labor unions and local groups… bla blaa blaa

I’m not talking about a political agreement; I’m talking about a set of decision. Not an A4 piece of paper full of good intentions. And I see no reasons why your ideas should be in that text.

COP 6 bis nailed down political points from a 500 pager. That can be done.

I don’t know the amount of detail. We need institutions with mandate and scope, and some time afterwards on how they would work. Put it differently: even with a legal treaty those kind of details would not be there. Advantage is we can transport stuff from Marracech. There have been also constructive discussion in the CDM EB, but that is suffering from a lack of progress in the numbers discussion.

Safeguards (for indigenous peoples rights) maybe in the overarching decision. But in the individual decisions, no.

New institutions? Market mechanisms and gender?

The text I see about respecting this and respecting that, you need to be much more specific.

David: timeline and momentum?

We should have a lot of momentum, and therefore a short timeframe. Finalizing the legal instrument June, or December maximum. Afterwards setting details, not fundamental negotiations.

I hope we will not have 400 decisions in Copenhagen, on local government and light frame bicycles and everything else…

We may see farming and land use issues under SBSTA;

Thanks to EGTT technology is advanced and I hope there is a strong output in Copenhagen.

The tension of the tracks is that we only got one. We only got Kyoto, which is being half-heartedly implemented. We have not seen the other emerge on targets, finance, and meanwhile there is talk of killing the only one we have.

New institutions?

Do you see any chance of WB coming out of Copenhagen as the fund keeper?

Wrong discussion. I find it a very male approach to talk about solution and not the problem. Developing countries feel that they are underrepresented and the parties are not in control.

2 extremes: everything is under Convention, and then all is under different multi- and bilateral mechanism (as in 11.5). Only way out is to listen to concerns and see a compromise.

Are we giving up?

I’m not giving up, not backing away from legally binding treaty, all I’m saying it cant  be done in Copenhagen. Reach far but not further that you can. If you can get those 4 annexes that I referred to, you have as much clarity as you would have negotiated treaty signed.

This is an assessment we all make personally, yours is as legitimate as mine. Hopefully you’ll prove me wrong in Copenhagen.

In MEF there was a constructive discussion on MRV, there’s discussion on NAtComs, and a broad need for a tracking mechanism on what countries are doing.

Compliance I haven’t thought about an awful lot, given where things seem to be going, there is need for tailored and sophisticated mechanisms…more nuanced than we will see in Copenhagen.

Sure many have read up about the African walking away from the negotiation here.

This kind of created a whole big hoo-ha all around the negotiation. While many of us thing it is about time that someone has the guts to make a stand, there are some who took the opportunity to say that the Africans are stalling the negotiation. The fact is, they are not.

What they are merely doing is to demand from the Annex 1 countries to keep the promise they had done so in 1997 and being at the end of the spectrum that has not benefited out of anything so far, its no doubt they are doing this.

There is a Chinese saying, “If you force a dog to one corner, it will turn back and bite at you.” I’d say this is pretty much what had happened.

After the statement by the African representative, on behalf of G77 and China, China made a statement saying urgent focus and meaningful response to the Kyoto Protocol agenda is required, especially the numbers. This was again supported in the statements made by Sudan and Egypt representatives.

Bolivia shared that what was happening here is that countries are feeling the frustrations where they firmly believes that clarity of numbers would assist in reducing such emotions that are triggered among the countries.

Interestingly, many countries spoke up but most, if not all, of them were from G77+China. Last I heard, Australia had meant to say something, but it didn’t happen. And neither of the Annex one countries spoke as well.

Well, the conditions from here on is this:

1. 60% of the sessions in Barcelona about the Kyoto Protocol must be committed to talk about clear number targets to achieve, based on the 1997 commitment.

2. No beating around the bush and delay tactics.

If either of the above is breached, the African Union is firm to walk out again. And along with them, solidarity with several nations in other parts of the developing or non-Annex 1 countries.

This pretty much marks an exciting, but short, week of negotiations.

Wilson (From Barcelona, with Love)

An Inconvenient Truth

Today in my Development of Geographic Thought class in NUS, we had presentations on three different strands of thought namely Political Economy, Social Theory and Nature & Society. These three strands of thought have been significant in the development of geographic thought in Human Geography and are  taught only during the Honours Year. There were 10 groups in all and 3 were set to present on Nature and Society. The reading/article they were supposed to critique as part of the assignment was Timothy Luke’s ‘2008 paper on ‘The politics of true convenience or inconvenient truth: struggles over how to sustain capitalism, democracy, and ecology in the 21st century’ found in Environment and Planning A, Vol.40(8), pp.1811-824.

The groups took varied approaches to deconstruct Luke’s paper on Al Gore. You could say that this presentation/assignment entails discursive analysis on a discourse analysis of a film! But in any case, the alternative approaches as contended by my classmates were Eco-feminism, Political Ecology and Post-colonial/Post-structural. These approaches in Human Geography form the contemporary academic arguments that we can use to critique and critically analyse popular films and movements such as Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.

Gore is said to be overly masculinist and to be promoting sustainable degradation in his 2006 hit film. Also, my classmates argued that Gore’s effort towards climate action only served to reinforce the American hegemonic relations and can be considered a form of neo-colonial management of the entire planet! The film is also criticised as overly Anglo-American and Gore fails to acknowlege his positionality as a White male.

I guess the take home message for all of us is to be sufficiently critical towards climate change movements and popularist “greening” cultures that are so prevalent today. We must understand that there are always underlying motives and political structure which we often overlook. In order to make informed choices in our bid towards climate change and doing our part, we need to stay viligant and true to this cause by adopting a critical lens. Having said this, that is not to say that Al Gore hasn’t done a good job in relaying the message of urgent climate action to a vast majority of Americans and people around the world. His efforts are commendable (and he’s already won a Nobel Peace Prize for it!) but fail to recognize many micro-politics of environmental change that come with climate change.

Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

Nothing as grisly as the title suggests (although it took place on the morning of Halloween), but continuing from Amira’s update a few posts down, an outdoor shoot it was. Highly successful, I must say.

I’m not going to bore you with more details about it, or about the party itself. So I’d leave you with some photographs from behind-the-scenes – because voyeurism’s always the coolest bit, isn’t it?

10am on a Saturday once again; this time with hot models in various states of undress. Makes getting out of bed alot easier!

Much thanks to our models, Johan & Shu Min, who didn’t mind spending their Saturday morning prancing half-naked on the lawn. To our photographer, Jingliang, who lugged her weight in equipment down – you don’t know how much I appreciate this. And to our make-up artist, Charm, who put up with the heat and garden monsters – I love you, babe!

Charm can be contacted at lowecharm@gmail.com for enquiries on make-up.