As a graduate student from York University, I had the opportunity to attend the United Nations’ Conference of Parties (COP17) in Durban, South Africa this December. The experience helped me understand that climate justice is about knowing when to stop talking and start listening. It is about humility and creating institutional opportunities for the people who are most affected by climate change to voice their concerns.

During a COP17 protest, I sat down under a tree beside a group of rural women from Northern Cape, South Africa. They were tired, hungry, and thirsty from protesting all day, but they were there to fight for agricultural and land reform. I have tried to understand their cause, but I was left confused by their passion and determination for climate justice. My situation was a lot more different than theirs: I live a relatively comfortable life in Canada as a student researching climate change policies. I do not know what it means to have limited opportunities when your family goes hungry because of a shortage of food caused by climate change. I went to South Africa with a desire to better understand the Conference of Parties as a policy platform. However, I have quickly learned to stop asking pre-determined questions and just start listening. My lesson in the importance of listening can further be applied to the new ways that climate justice can be incorporated into the institutional structure of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the many programs that are part of this greater scheme.

The current market-based approach in the UNFCCC to regulate greenhouse gases is supported by some and opposed by others. An interesting aspect of COP17 was how these different opinions were concentrated in different physical locations. The physical structure of COP17 in South Africa can be divided into three main physical spaces. There was the Durban Exhibition Centre, which has over two hundred information booths from various research institutes, NGOs, and private companies; this was also the location of various panel discussions on the technicalities of UN’s programs as well as discussions on private and public involvement. The official place for governmental negotiations on international climate change initiatives was the International Conference Centre. In these two spaces there was very little opposition, with the exception of a number of civil society groups such as GreenPeace and the Canadian Youth Delegation, against a market-based approach in mitigating climate change.

The third location, a park called the “speakers corner”, became a public space where people from different parts of the world would gather to express their dissatisfaction with carbon markets and governmental inaction. The plurality of voices in this space provided different opinions on what can be considered adequate and realistic action on climate change. That said, the majority of protesters were against a profit-based approach and were either calling for more participatory, accountable, and transparent UN climate negotiations or the disposal of the current process and the establishment of a new system that would be based on peoples-solutions to climate change. I believe that there is space for both – the governmental and peoples-driven approaches to climate change – but the key to success is greater interaction between these two systems.

A recognized advantage for the majority of the world’s population during COP17, relative to other COPs, was that this conference took place on African soil. This presented an opportunity for many civil society people from Africa and Asia to be able to attend this international conference and place ‘climate justice’ on center stage by either protesting or participating in panel discussions. ‘Climate justice’ is based on the understanding that industrialized countries such as Canada and the United States are historically responsible for the current climate crises whereas ‘developing’ countries and lower-income communities (including communities in the ‘developed’ world) will be most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. In the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change  (1992) the ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ principle was introduced to outline that both ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ countries needed to introduce different measures to combat climate change as per their different responsibilities and capacities. This principle is arguably being eroded by the pressures of certain big players such as United States and Canada to incorporate ‘developing’ countries into a legally-binding climate agreement while refusing to provide adequate financial support to help developing countries develop their economies sustainably. Placing a greenhouse gas emissions’ cap on certain developing countries would limit their economic development. For this reason, a number of developing countries, including India, have been very vocal about ‘equity’ and ‘right to development’ during COP17 and in future international climate negotiations. The ‘climate justice’ slogan became a common sight and chant during COP17 protests. What does ‘climate justice’ mean now after the signing of the Durban deal where countries have agreed to move forward with a legally binding agreement that will incorporate the ‘developing’ world?

‘Climate justice’ in future COPs should be about creating the right institutional opportunities for those who are currently lacking the space to voice their concerns and propose their different solutions. In short, ‘climate justice’ is about recognizing that industrialized countries have a circumstantial privilege in not only dealing with climate-change impacts but also during climate change negotiations at the United Nations level. Countries such as Canada and the United States need to learn when to stop talking and start listening. Although COP17 proved to be the fertile ground to explore the realities of many developing countries that are already being disproportionately affected by climate change, the institutional structure and negotiation climate at COP17 did not place enough emphasis on the importance of listening. The official delegates were in Durban to represent their government’s perspective and their national interests. However, it must be recognized that it is in their interests to hear what others, including the protesters, have to say about climate change. The protesting of many people from around the world on climate change was often categorized as unrealistic and unpractical opinions. But the conversations that happened at protests contain valuable information on how to approach ‘climate justice’ in international climate change policy and should inform the future development of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. ‘Climate justice’ is about meaningful dialogue between developed and developing countries, private and public sector representatives, and the national delegates and the people.

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) in developing countries has received lots of attention at COP17. The REDD initiative was first proposed at COP11 as a program that will transfer money to conserve forests in developing countries and prevent the release of about 20% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are said to be caused by deforestation and forest degradation in the Global South. In official negotiations, REDD has become the win-win program as it would reward ‘forest stewardship’ in developing countries, and it would allow developed countries to bank-in carbon credits. A number of climate finance programs have been established to push forward the development and application of REDD. Some of these initiatives include: the World Bank’s Forest Investment Program (FIP), World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF), Norway’s Amazon Fund, Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund (ICCTF), and Australia’s International Forest Carbon Initiative (IFCI). These funds conveniently serve the role of transferring the money that has been promised in various UNFCCC protocols and accords to help developing countries introduce climate change measures. Additionally, this money helps in the continued development of the much-praised carbon economy, which will supposedly introduce cost-effectiveness to climate change mitigation efforts while at the same time allow private and public institutions to profit via carbon capitalism.

REDD and REDD+ works by converting a piece of forest into carbon credits that could then be used by ‘developed’ countries to either offset their GHG emissions or sell these carbon credits for profit. The REDD+ initiative is supposed to incorporate sustainable forest management initiatives into REDD projects. A number of REDD and REDD+ projects have resulted in Indigenous and rural people being robbed of their land and their livelihoods. As noted by the Nepali Indigenous Peoples, there are a number of problems in local communities that may arise from REDD projects such as “shifting, displacement, landlessness and poverty”. When a piece of land is registered as a REDD project, legal restrictions are placed on how that land may be used; this may block Indigenous Peoples’ access to their land and their livelihood. The problem is that there are no specific procedures that can guarantee on a project-by-project basis that Indigenous Peoples’ rights will be respected. Inside the Durban Exhibition Centre at COP17, there is a number of booths where Indigenous People support the REDD program as a way to bring money into their communities. Their support, however, is conditional on full participation of Indigenous Peoples in the development and implementation of REDD projects on their lands.

A number of COP17 side-events have focused on improving the technicalities of the REDD initiative in order to introduce more transparency and consistency in forest commodification. COP17 is said to be the place where more guidelines will be introduced to improve REDD. That said, I have not seen any side-events that provided a critical perspective on the implications of commodifying forests in the Global South. Additionally, I was not able to find an Indigenous Peoples’ booth in the Durban Exhibition Centre that openly opposes the REDD initiative. As noted by Tom Goldtooth from the Indigenous Environmental Network, “there is marginalization of Indigenous Peoples that oppose the REDD program”. The UNFCCC needs to maintain a spotless public campaign of Indigenous Peoples’ support for REDD initiatives. However, there are some well-funded NGOs, such as Greenpeace International, that have openly opposed carbon capitalism.

As voiced in the protest outside the official COP17 negotiations, there are many Indigenous Peoples that oppose the conversion of their lands for private profit. The issue here is the application of carbon capitalism to Indigenous Peoples’ land as well as natural ecosystems. Carbon capitalism is a system where capitalists can utilize climate change as an opportunity to make profit. At the Wednesday’s protest, Indigenous Peoples made a strong statement that they will not allow their forests to be converted into a money-making business. Their message to the national delegates at COP 17 is “Respect the Indigenous Peoples; Respect their rights; Respect their lands”. What is interesting here is that while forests in the developing world have become the centre-piece of cost-effective climate change action, little attention is paid to the economic pressure that is placed on developing countries to cut down their forests.  What if we were to limit consumerism in industrialized countries?  What if we  were to look at what is currently happening in the forested lands of the ‘developed’ world? Industrialized countries such as Canada should focus on re-evaluating their (clear-cut) logging practices and monoculture reforestation programs. Thus, the question is once again, why is it that in COP17 the emphasis remains on limiting the ability of developing countries to pursue economic development while developed countries, responsible for today’s climate crises, can continue with business-as-usual?

The Good

Overall, the conference seems rather sophisticated, with most of the action split between the Durban Exhibition Centre (DEC) and the International Conference Centre (ICC), located right next to one another in the heart of downtown Durban. Most of my time here is spent in the DEC, which is home to approximately 200 information booths set up by a variety of institutions and organizations (including the York University / Inuit Youth Delegation headquarters – booth 197). The information booths include pamphlets and other organization publications, as well as games and other giveaways, and allow for an effective use of time in between other events. The DEC contains several side event rooms with open delegate access, a media area, a computer centre with computers provided, and an area designed for bloggers to blog on their laptops.

Aside from additional side events and presentations not open for general delegate access, the ICC is also home to various information areas and transportation / travel information for delegates from out of town.

Furthermore, I have found the staff and volunteers at COP17 to be very helpful and friendly. They do a good job of keeping things running smoothly with their hard work.

The Bad

I, and several co-delegates, were perplexed by how difficult it can be to get a straight forward list of the day’s side events. There is a printed list of the day’s side events (complete with time and room) located in the DEC, but otherwise delegates are expected to get the day’s information on one of the CCTV screens located in the DEC and ICC. The screens contain a rolling list, requiring delegates to stand by and wait for the events of interest to appear so the time and room information can be recorded before it disappears. Daily programmes are printed and distributed at the publications counters in the DEC and ICC, yet these printouts include mainly a list of key international representatives and a limited side events list (inconveniently excluding the open events). Why not include the full event listing? I am at a loss. Highlighted on one of the programmes is a list containing some of the day’s open events, while omitting the times the events take place. Again I am baffled.

While not a huge impediment, I was struck by an irony regarding registration. Durban is packed with posters, banners and other advertising for COP17, from the airport to the downtown cityscape. Yet, there appeared to be very little advertising for where to register for the conference. I walked all around the demarcated conference grounds until finally coming to the registration/entrance tent.

One problem with so many side events occurring simultaneously is that neighbouring speakers are always clearly and loudly audible in any given side event room. This becomes a distraction and makes the speakers harder to fully hear and follow. Perhaps this is something that simply cannot be avoided.

Lastly, there is a significant shortage of chairs in the computer centre and blogger’s loft, as well as in eating areas. When things are especially busy, one can watch ordinary delegates degenerate (somewhat understandably) into sneaky, selfish chair seekers. Again, this is an issue perhaps not easily avoidable, given the huge number of delegates and the finite amount of conference space.

Concluding Remarks

On the whole, I am thus far impressed with COP17, aside from a few snags here and there. The conference itself (as a physical space) seems an overall success. Whether or not the conference will be a success in terms of making any progress toward any kind of climate justice is another issue – we will have a better sense of that before long. Unfortunately, few have high hopes.

The continued controversial topic in COP17 is how ‘developing’ countries should be included in a post-Kyoto agreement. There is a number of very powerful developed countries, including the United States and Canada, that will not sign a legally binding agreement until developing countries (especially emerging economies such as India, China, and Brazil) are forced to limit their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This is supported by the argument that due to the global nature of GHGs, the actions of Annex I (developed) countries in limiting their GHG emissions will be offset by the emissions of developing countries as their economies grow. This definitely has some standing. However, the proposed as well as existing national climate change policies presented here in COP17 by developing countries show that the developing world is already taking action on climate change proportional to their political and economic realities.

Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests and Centre for Science and Environment side event at COP 17: The imperative of equity for an effective climate agreement. Monday, December 5, 2011

Developing countries want to take action on climate change, but they also want to make sure that any kind of (binding or voluntary) agreement that comes out of Durban will adequately incorporate equity and justice. The historical perspective on climate change is that ‘developed’ countries have contributed most to the present day crises: with less than 20% of the world’s population, developed countries are responsible for 75% of global GHG emissions (UNFCCC 2009). The people most vulnerable to climate change impacts, however, are the undernourished communities in developing countries as well as climate-change refugees that will be displaced by sea-level rises and natural disasters. Yet, these people have not received the economic benefits that developed countries gained from industrial, carbon-intense development. Additionally, some developing countries were/are disadvantaged by industrial, and now, capitalistic development. In the name of climate-change action, how can we (the higher-income countries) now refuse developing countries their ‘right to development’? Placing GHG emission targets on developing countries means limiting their economic growth.

A reality check for climate change negotiations is recognizing the different economic and political capacities of countries to introduce climate change mitigation measures. By allowing voluntary measures in the Cancun Agreement for both developed and developing countries, the financial burden for climate change action has shifted to developing countries. The Cancun Agreement moved away from the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ of developed and developing countries that was introduced in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The issue here is that while the developed world does not want to pay for climate change measures via GHG limits to capitalistic growth, developing countries cannot afford to pay for climate change action. Additionally, the Global South should not have to pay for something that they are not responsible for creating. If we want developing countries to economically grow in a sustainable manner, a lot of money will be required to decouple their economic growth from GHG emissions.

Reflecting on the COP17 side-events’ schedule and coverage, it becomes clear that the discussion has shifted to financial-support instruments for developing countries and voluntary commitments for both the developed and the developing worlds. The idea of a second-commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol or an altogether new legally binding Durban Protocol seems to have been abandoned. But nothing is certain until the end of the negotiation talks. Presently, the side-events discussion has centered on the Green Climate Fund (GCF) as well as marked-based initiatives such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD). The continued discussion on the transfer of finances from the developed world is a welcomed initiative. But if we are talking about equity and justice in climate change negotiations, financial initiatives should not replace the necessary actions that developed countries should take as part of their responsibility for releasing GHG emissions.

Ndayiragije Diendonne

Let me introduce to you Ndayiragije Diendonne, who travelled on a bus more than seven thousands kilometres from Burundi to make his voice heard at the climate change conference in Durban. Ndayiragije is part of the Trans-African “Caravan of Hope” where 300 farmers, youth, and activists from 10 eastern and southern African countries took busses to arrive at COP17 and try to tell the world how climate change is affecting their communities. After all, COP17 is hosted on African soil. And the people here, already disadvantaged by the current economic and political system, are and will continue to be particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

Before Saturday’s Global Day of Action protest, important gatherings took place in parks and the KwaZulu-Natal University where people shared their stories and talked about what climate justice means to them. Unfortunately, I was at the Convention Centre listening to a United States representative give a media update of hoping to achieve a “balanced outcome”, of major economies not being prepared to sign a legally binding agreement, and of different governments taking different pathways – the same old story.  But what I can write here are some of the messages that were voiced at the protest: “our Africa, our climate, our rights”, “protect our workers and communities”, “grow food, not emissions”, “listen to the people”, “respect the earth”,  “time for climate justice”…

Ndayiragije and the Trans-African Caravan of Hope are leaving Durban today because they do not have the money to stay until the end of the week when the COP17 negotiations come to an end. Meaningful participation of people from the ‘developing’ world in future COPs means that there should be financial resources for both the official delegates as well as for people from affected communities. Climate justice is about building institutional spaces within the United Nations so that ‘people’, and not just official delegates, get to participate in the formation of international law on climate change. The distance between the official delegates in the Convention Centre and those who are protesting outside is too big.

I have asked Ndayiragije if he believed that COP17 would result in an agreement. He just smiled. “Then your seven thousand kilometers journey was a waste of time”, I responded too quickly. He looked at me and then at the protest, and said, “no, this is not a waste of time.”

Please click here for videos on the protest

The Competition focuses on adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change, which is defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as the adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities (IPCC Third Assessment Report, Climate Change 2001)

The deadline for submission is November 22nd, 2011. Late entries will not be accepted. An entry is considered only if received by the photos must be submitted electronically to the Adaptation Fund Board Secretariat secretariat@adaptation-fund.org.

For more information on submitting your entry, please visit:

http://www.adaptation-fund.org/sites/default/files/AFcompetitionRules.pdf or contact our delegate Rachel Hirsch at rhirsch@yorku.ca.

Introduction

For nearly 20 years the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has been the international body responsible for addressing the global problem of climate change.  In 1990, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution formally launching negotiations towards an international climate change agreement and, on May 9, 1992, the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted (IPIECA, 2008: 2). Currently, the Convention has been signed by 191 nations. Historically, the United Nations has been the highest decision making body that nations turn to in order to come to an agreement on how to reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. At the core of the UNFCCC process is the ideal of international cooperation and democratic pluralism leading to collective action to solve the problem of climate change. The UNFCCC represents and forwards the widely held belief that cooperation among interested parties, including states, corporations, and civil society, can result in policies to resolve global warming. The annual Conference of the Parties (COP) serves as a space for nations to evaluate, negotiate, and improve their commitments within the Convention.

However, for several years now, the UNFCCC and its annual COP have come under severe criticism. First of all, the on-going political negotiations of the UNFCCC have not moved the world closer to resolving the problem of climate change despite growing scientific evidence of the serious risks to ecosystems and society. In fact, since the beginning of the Convention, the mean global concentration of CO2 has actually increased from 356.27 ppm in 1992 to 389.78 ppm in 2010 (Mauna Loa Observatory), calling into question the capacity of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol to actually curb and reduce emissions. Secondly, the Conference of the Parties 15 (COP15) in Copenhagen was a turning point in the legitimacy of the UNFCCC insofar as the façade of democratic pluralism (which its legitimacy relies upon) was officially shredded. Over 30,000 official delegates were locked out of the COP15 negotiations and found themselves confronted by police brutality while the Copenhagen Accord was put forward by a handful of states without the support of the G77. The failure of leading industrial nations to be inclusive or deliberative in the face of a major threat to the survival of the human race led many experts and observers to concede that the UNFCCC process is unlikely to provide any meaningful action on curbing GHG emissions. Thirdly, in the last round of negotiations at COP16 in Cancun, the international community agreed to maintain a global temperature rise of 2°C, while suggesting that the controversial Carbon Capture and Storage and REDD+ (reduced emissions through decreased deforestation) schemes should form a new market-based solution to curbing emissions, while also putting forward a new Green Fund for mitigation and adaptation actions for developing countries. Despite the the UNFCCC’s rush to promote these decisions as ‘progress’, Cancun failed to fulfill the central purpose of the UNFCCC which is to establish a legally binding commitment to reduce emissions between countries.

Civil Society and the UNFCCC

From a political perspective, one of the most alarming features of the UNFCCC currently has been its reconfigured relationship to civil society which began in 2009. At COP15, 45,000 official delegates arrived at the conference to participate as official invited observers. This historical turnout proved to be a serious challenge for the United Nations. Logistically, the conference site could hold only 15,000 people, leaving 30,000 delegates stranded outside for days on end. Outraged over their exclusion, NGO delegates protested and joined a climate justice street march. The protestors were confronted with 9,000 police officers who used brutality and arbitrary arrest to dissipate the peaceful march. Amid the chaos, the president of the UNFCCC resigned and the UNFCCC unilaterally decided to formally lock out all 15,000 NGO delegates from COP15 leaving decisions to the state and corporate delegates who were locked behind closed doors. Thousands of invited participants were officially blocked from the multilateral climate process, marking the end of open NGO participation within the UNFCCC.

Reviewing the situation, the UNFCCC realized that civil society was willing to mobilize in large numbers to express its discontent with the UNFCCC process and the failure of democratically elected governments to represent the concerns of citizens. In order to reclaim its legitimacy at COP16 in Cancun, the UNFCCC made a number of strategic manoeuvres. In the first place, the conference was relocated to the Yucatan Peninsula, far away from major population centers. Cancun provided a strategic spatial fix for the UNFCCC insofar as the protests that did inevitably occur in Mexico City had no key location upon which to converge. Secondly, for the first time in its history, the UNFCCC decided to physically separate official NGOs and non-delegate civil society from the negotiation space of the conference. Overall, the conference zone was so large that it would have taken seven hours to traverse the entire zone by foot and just over two hours to traverse the zone by car or bus, a calculation that does not include the delays caused by military checkpoints along the way. In contrast, in Copenhagen the conference was located in one space and was easily accessible by anyone via public transit. This effectively erased all civil society from the space of the official negotiations. Finally, the choice of Cancun also afforded UNFCCC COP16 delegates the opportunity to attend the conference in an idyllic location offering the eco-vacation of a lifetime. To this end, Cancun was transformed into an environmental fantasyland where delegates, who were secured accommodations in all inclusive ‘eco-resorts’, could purchase carbon offsets to ensure their flight to the COP was carbon neutral, wake up to the sounds of pre-recorded birds singing in a transplanted ‘conservation’ forest, gorge on all-you-can-eat daily vegan, and ‘get back to nature’ in their downtime by taking various eco-trips into artificial conservation areas along the peninsula. These actions on the part of the UNFCCC served to re-legitimate the organization in the eyes of delegates, and set forward a new precedent to physically remove civil society from the spaces of power in international climate politics.

The Road to Durban COP17

COP17 will take place in Durban from November 28 – December 9 2011. As we approach the eve of another COP, what can we expect in light of the UNFCCC’s recent history and the outcomes of the interim talks in Bonn since Cancun? In a nutshell, we can expect to witness the end of the Kyoto Protocol with no new legally binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to replace it. The failure of the interim negotiations in Bonn last June to produce a draft for negotiation in Durban is a telling sign that the international process to reduce emissions via a legal agreement is unlikely to move forward in the near term, and instead we should expect to see international efforts diverted towards financing and establishing the basis, implementation, and details of the $100 billion per year Green Fund for developing countries by 2020. But, the Green Fund, in the absence of new legally-binding emission reduction targets, will act to divert attention away from the main emitters of GHGs. Instead, the international community’s attention will be placed on technology transfers to the South rather than on substantive cuts for the world’s major emitters, establishing the legally controversial REDD+ scheme, and encouraging new forms of experimental adaptation finance- none of which will achieve the immediate and pressing goals of reducing global GHG emissions to curb catastrophic climate change. Patrick Bond, has described the situation poignantly: “What everyone now predicts is a conference of paralysis. Not only will the Kyoto Protocol be allowed to expire at the end of its first commitment period (2012). Far worse, Durban will primarily be a conference of profiteers, as carbon trading – the privatization of the air, giving rich states and companies the property-right to pollute – is cemented as the foundation of the next decade’s global climate malgovernance” (Bond, 2011: 1). This is evident as the UNFCCC recently called for a ‘quantum leap’ in private sector involvement in investment to combat climate change this September (Chestney and Twidale, 2011). The power of corporate interests in the negotiations has been a prominent feature of the UNFCCC since the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, and the force of market interests is evident in the push forward towards REDD+. Moreover, some elements of civil society appear to be shifting, with Greenpeace announcing a change in its strategic focus, choosing to focus less on the UNFCCC negotiations and more on action against industrial polluter and corporations. To date, the activities of civil society and the climate justice movement for mobilizing action at COP17 appear fragmented, and although it is difficult to predict the future, the location of COP17 in the wealthy guarded neighbourhoods of Durban raises questions regarding the capacity of civil society to adequately impact the process through traditional forms of protest and mass mobilization. In all likelihood, political activism at COP17 is likely to remain outside of the purview of the negotiators and power, as a market-based agenda is pushed forward and entrenched deeper into the UNFCCC and its various non-binding agreements.

Developing a Radical Climate Politics

Currently, it appears that previous modes of pressure by civil society  have not been able to stop the UNFCCC from putting forward market-based solutions to climate change that privilege economic and corporate interests. Calls for a fair and just climate deal have fallen on deaf ears for nearly two decades, with no change in sight. Moreover, we find ourselves at a moment where the summer Arctic ice extent has reached a record low, where East Africa is experiencing its worst drought in 60 years, and where Texas had the worst wildfires in its history. Yet, these trends which should alarm all of us to the potential devastating consequence of climate change for humans and nature, have been met with further equivoaction by the corporate state and the power elite who claim that the market can solve this unprecedented environmental problem, and even that climate change will bring new unforeseen benefits and an age of “climate prosperity” (NRTEE, 2010). Sheldon Wolin would explain these politics as shaped by the inverted totalitarianism that has been normalized in US and international politics. Unlike classic totalitarianism, where a powerful state dominates the economy, in inverted totalitarianism corporations and the economic imperatives dominate the state. According to Chris Hedges, climate change is inseparable from inverted totalitarianism, and the failure of the liberal class who have placed their hopes in the climate negotiations is that it “sought consensus and was obedient when it should have fought back.  (It) continues to trumpet a childish faith in human progress…..the naive belief that technology will save us from ourselves. The liberal class assumed that by working with corporate power, it could mitigate the worst excesses of capitalism and environmental degradation. It did not grasp, perhaps because liberals do not read enough Marx, the revolutionary and self-destructive nature of unfettered capitalism” (Stryker, 2010 quoting Hedges, 2010). We have failed as a society to address the problem of climate change through our existing political mechanisms and economic structure. For example, the current Canadian government’s tendency to privilege corporate and economic interests at the climate negotiations and its continued support of the Tar Sands is exemplary of the inverted totalitarianism under which we now live. Given the clear directive of the Harper government to ignore the overwhelming majority of Canadian voices (65%) that believe the government should take action on climate change at home (CBC, 2011), and  by extension,  the inaction of our government at the UNFCCC negotiations, suggests that we should seriously re-evaluate what citizens can accomplish through protest or representative politics.  Notwithstanding a major change in government direction after the next election, it may be time to reconsider the shape that climate politics ought to take. It may be time to put aside our hopes that the UNFCCC and negotiations among the power elite can solve the problem. Instead, we should consider preparing for the changes to come as our governments, institutions, and economic structures fail to take the actions necessary to halt climate change. A radical politics of climate change will not be found in a protest march barricaded by police on the outskirts of a dying UNFCCC negotiation in Durban. Radical action on climate change will happen in our communities and among us. At the most basic level, this will include building communities that do not depend on oil for the basis of their survival, a move towards self-sufficient self-governing sustainable democratic communities capable of providing for their material needs outside of capitalist social relations, developing the capacity to grow food outside of the agro-industrial complex, developing economically democratic systems for production, reclaiming the commons that are fundamental to human survival , and above all a fundamental change in consciousness where the human domination of nature, the human domination of other humans, and the human domination of the self no longer forms the basis of our social relations.

Sources

Bond, P. (2011).  ‘The Durban Climate Summit (Conference of the Parties 17) Climate Justice versus Market Narratives’, Nature™ Inc. Questioning the Market Panacea in Environmental Policy and Conservation, Institute for Social Studies, The Hague, 30 June 2011

CBC (2011). ‘Climate Change an Issue in Canada: Poll’, CBC News Online, February 22, 2011

Chestney, N. and Twidale, S. (2011). ‘Climate Investment need ‘quantum’ leap, says U.N. Official’, Reuters, September 14, 2011

Hedges, C. (2010). ‘How Corporations Destroyed American Democracy’, Socialism 2010, Oakland, California, 3, July 2010

IPIECA (2008). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol: A Guide to the Climate Negotiations.

Medalye, J. (2011). ‘Brave New UNFCCC: Spatial fixes, Environmental Utopia, and the New Governmentality of International Climate Politics’, Canadian Dimension, Web Exclusive, February 9, 2011

Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO)

Medalye, J. (2010). ‘COP15 in and Uneven World: Contradictions and Crisis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’, Part 1, in Sandberg, L.A. and Sandberg, T. (eds), Climate Change- Who’s Carrying the Burden? The Chilly Climates of the Global Environmental Dilemma, The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives: Ottawa

National Roundtable on Environment and Economy (2010), Climate Prosperity

Stryker, D. (2010). Chris Hedges, Marx, and Climate Change

Wolin, Sheldon, S. (2008). Democracy Incorporate: Managed Democracy and Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism, Princeton University

On July 5, 2011, C17 met at Durban’s Botanic Gardens Education Centre. At the meeting, I observed an interesting mix of harmony and disharmony among the various organizations and individuals in attendance. This can be expected, given the range of organizations and individuals present. One of the biggest questions that must be asked is the question of how much progress was made at the meeting (not an easy question to answer in my opinion). I must also concede that this was my first C17 meeting and as such I am in no position to comment on the progress that was made prior to the meeting.

One of the primary purposes of the meeting was to determine a list of principles that C17 should stand for. After small groups discussed the principles, all votes were tallied and universally agreed upon principles were noted. Some attendees felt that the process for deciding which principles for C17 to follow was itself flawed and undemocratic. This stemmed from the fact that if only one single person in attendance didn’t agree with one principle, it would be instantly and permanently scrapped.

All in all, of the 25 principles set out, only 4 were agreed upon:
• Demand a binding agreement for emissions reductions
• Pledge and review system is unacceptable
• Environmentally sustainable, socially just and equitable development
• Safeguard biodivertiy and peoples’ rights

However, several principles were almost agreed upon. That is to say that several principles were agreed upon by all groups except one or two, who made minor alterations to the principle but still ultimately agreed on it (even as little an alteration as changing “drastically reduce fossil fuel emissions” to “reduce fossil fuel emissions”). This left some universally desired principles off the agreed-upon list, with altered principles perhaps to be voted on at a later date.

The presentation delivered from a government official left most attendees disappointed. The government presenter arrived late (thereby forcing a last-minute schedule change), gave a presentation that confused the majority of attendees, and then left without actually attempting to settle the confusion. The presentation was rife with acronyms unknown to almost the entire audience. Even though attendees mentioned to her that members of the audience were confused, she nevertheless failed to explain herself. She agreed to explain the acronyms “sooner or later” yet this never happened.

Another item on the agenda was to decide on a name for the side event venue thus far simply known as ‘the space.’ A relatively unimportant (albeit necessary) decision in my opinion, yet the disagreement that came about from this decision reflected the disagreements occurring throughout the day. The democratically voted-upon name was Amandla oMa, meant to mean “Power to Mother Earth” in Zulu. However, due to discrepancies surrounding the correct translation, the name for ‘the space’ has yet to be decided.

All in all, some progress was achieved to be sure. One notable example was the amount of attendees who signed themselves up to volunteer for C17 as well as events that were registered, mostly to be held during the COP17 conference in ‘the space.’ Of course, progress during meetings of such diverse points of view cannot be expected to come particularly easily or swiftly. Having said this, the movement still seems to be alive and somewhat well, and I am hopeful that any obstacles at this stage can be overcome in the crucial months leading up to COP17.