Life on earth exists today thanks to greenhouse gases. Over the eons they have acted as a blanket, shielding us from the cold of outer space. Yet as populations, economies and technologies have grown over the past few centuries, more gases have been pumped into the ‘blanket’ and our planet has been getting warmer.
As part of Din l-Art Ħelwa’s 50th anniversary activities, a public lecture was delivered by Michael Zammit Cutajar, a veteran of climate conference negotiations since 1991. He is currently advising a think tank (Institute of Sustainable Development and International Relations) ahead of the next climate summit in Paris this year.
The summit is seen by many as the last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming to a limit safe for humanity, while protecting the poor and vulnerable from ongoing climate change that ultimately endangers their lives.
A former ambassador for Malta on climate change, Zammit Cutajar spoke candidly of “the gap between the action of countries and what science tells us”. How to close that gap is the subject of preparatory talks ahead of the 21st climate summit late this year.
‘Managing our greenhouse’, as the talk was titled, has always been contentious. It touches the very heart of economic activity. How countries look at climate change depends on where they are – politically, economically and geographically. People in Switzerland think of climate change in a different way from people in the Maldives.
There is no longer any uncertainty that climate change is here. The only debate circles around how fast it is happening and how much of it is related to human activity after natural effects have been accounted for.
In 2005 it was noted that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air had exceeded natural fluctuations over the past 650,000 years by a long way. Greenhouse gases and human influence on warming of the planet are unmistakably on the rise, with an average 1°C increase in temperature since measuring started. For some areas this could be a benefit if only it could be made to stop there; however, a temperature rise of 4°C tips us toward a seriously destabilised climate.
The effects of such an increase in global temperature can generally be expected to turn out negative for all countries, hitting hardest in countries where most poor people live. It will push people away from where they can no longer make a living.
Scientists do not prescribe, they merely present scenarios, assessing the risks and options for society. It is the politicians who have decided on aiming for a ceiling of two degrees increase above pre-industrial levels. Although the more vulnerable countries have been pushing for half a degree below the 2°C limit, there is general acceptance of the two-degree cap as a manageable warming limit.
Zammit Cutajar said the atmosphere can take 800 billion tonnes of carbon. So far we have emitted 550, which means we have 250 left. At the present global carbon emission rate of 10 gigatonnes each year we have a mere quarter century in which to adapt.
We could simply carry on with a business-as-usual stance, and then in 2030 call a sudden halt to the way we move around and produce goods. But the only sensible approach is to plan ahead and start adapting now
In theory, we could simply carry on with a business-as-usual stance, and then in 2030 call a sudden halt to the way we move around and produce goods. But the only sensible approach is to plan ahead and start adapting now. We would be well advised to change the way we do things within the coming 25 years. Doing more earlier makes the best sense.
A strong focus on how medium-to-severe socio-economic and environmental impacts of climate change can be avoided is now needed. Yet there are a number of divides with geo-political balances shifting centre. North-south, the US-China, Russia, India, the EU and OPEC countries are often at variance, and there is a pressing urgency to bring new light to the climate treaty and protocol.
Some say the negotiations, which have been going on for over 20 years, are ‘an inherently flawed process’, dependent on a consensus known for producing the lowest common denominator. The French presidency of the COP21 talks in Paris is trying a new twist, getting leaders to agree on principles, and then officials and ministers come in to work out the details.
• Polly Higgins, a ‘lawyer for the planet’ who started out in corporate law, visited Malta recently to speak on a subject covered by her book Eradicating Ecocide. How, she asks, can the voice of vulnerable small island states be heard at climate negotiations when the US has 2,000 negotiators and the Maldives only five?
Finding the idea that Earth is up for negotiation abhorrent, she advocates for another way to make the changes we need for human survival on the planet.
Representing transnational corporations in court early in her career, she was shocked that people thought it completely normal to make a lot of money out of processes that caused loss of ecosystems and massive damage to the environment.
Currently businesses have a legal duty to put the interests of their shareholders first, making the maximisation of profit an overriding objective. However, if serious environmental damage is outlawed, argues Higgins, then banks, investors and shareholders will not allow their companies to conduct criminal affairs to make profit.
Ecocide is defined as any extensive damage or destruction of the natural landscape and disruption or loss of ecosystems to such an extent that survival of inhabitants of that territory is endangered.
A law to criminalise activity that causes significant harm to the environment would force corporations, businesses and all those responsible to be directly accountable for their impact on the environment. Such a legal instrument would encourage businesses to support the protection and regeneration of ecosystems and build a more sustainable economy and society.
The Rome statute of the International Criminal Court is already the basis of current laws against the crimes of most significance to humanity as a whole, such as genocide, aggression and war crimes. A law against ecocide is needed even during peacetime as certain large corporations are daily waging war on the environment, sometimes as an unknown consequence of new industries on the rise.
Voted among the world’s top 10 visionary thinkers by Ecologist magazine, Higgins has been campaigning at the United Nations to have ecocide added to the Rome statute as an international crime.
The environment of Kazakhstan suffered serious harm after decades of nuclear testing during the Soviet era devastated the land. Since 1990, 10 countries (Russia, Ukraine, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Georgia, Belarus, Vietnam, Moldova and Armenia) have made ecocide during peacetime a national crime.
Contamination of atmosphere, land and water resources and the mass extermination of flora and fauna in these countries are crimes punishable by imprisonment for up to 20 years. Yet although these laws are in place, their effectiveness depends on enforcement, an independent judiciary and respect for the rule of law. If ecocide is made an international crime then action could be taken against members of governments complicit in ecocide crimes.
www.newclimateeconomy.report
www.eradicatingecocide.com