Low carbon sustainable community – going global?
Laurie Michaelis looks at the outcomes of the recent climate conference
Reading the decisions from last month’s UN climate conference in Warsaw, you can feel the delegates’ anguish. They know the scale of the task before them. They express ‘serious concern’ about unprecedented warming of the climate system. They warn of the urgent threat to society. They underline the gap between countries’ pledges to cut emissions, and the reductions needed to limit warming to 1.5-2°C. But these people, representing the governments of the world’s nation states, do not have the power to close that gap.
The Quaker UN Office in Geneva is involved in ‘quiet diplomacy’ at the talks, aiming to build more trusting relationships between delegates. Ellie Roberts, Lindsey Fielder Cook and Jonathan Woolley attended. Lindsey speaks of the privilege of being present at the conference, seeing government representatives grappling with a deeply spiritual challenge: how do we live? Can we protect the environment on which we depend?
There are several entrenched arguments at the UN talks. Major developing nations, including Brazil, China and India, point to historical emissions by industrialised countries, saying they must bear the brunt of emission cuts and of financial provision for poorer countries. The European Union and United States want all countries to make commitments. They point to rapid growth, especially in China where CO2 emissions per capita have nearly caught up with ours in Britain. The decision in Warsaw was that all countries should make ‘contributions’ rather than ‘commitments’.
There was unexpected progress on the subject of ‘loss and damage’. Vulnerable countries – including the Philippines, still in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan – want a financial mechanism for rapid relief following extreme weather events. The United States in particular resists the idea that carbon emitters should be liable for damages. The conference agreed that funds will be made available – but they will come under the heading of support for adaptation to climate change, rather than compensation for damage.
As Janet Toye explained in the Friend (29 November), climate change is the product of complex relationships among different global systems: fossil fuel supplies, technologies, markets and demographics. Governments do not control greenhouse gas emissions; much of the power is focused in fossil fuel companies and financial institutions.
It is not a simple problem of injustice or of right and wrong. We are all perpetrators and potential victims. In many ways, the issues are similar to those we face in our local communities. We must move beyond guilt and blame, accepting the Transition Movement’s mantra that ‘everyone is needed’. It’s about dissolving barriers and building relationships – seeing ourselves as parts one of another. It’s also about taking responsibility for our own contribution to both the problem and the solution.
The Polish government hosted a coal conference alongside the climate summit. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Climate Convention, made a guest appearance. She told the conference that coal could be part of the climate solution but most of it must be left in the ground.
I would put it a little differently. Fossil fuels must be left in the ground, but we need to seek a way forward in partnership with the people and companies who depend on them for their livelihoods. What does it mean to work with fossil fuel companies in building a global low carbon sustainable community? What about others involved in maintaining the status quo – like the banks, the military and the media? We need the love and imagination to see all people, all countries, all organisations, as part of the solution, and to be ready to answer that of God in every one of them.
Laurie is the environment editor for the Friend.
Comments
Please login to add a comment
