Weapons in climate change war

By next summer, 20 years will have gone by since the first EarthSummit held in Brazil.

Already the world is gearing up to renew political commitments at the next UN conference on sustainable development to be held in June 2012.

‘Rio plus 20’ is seen by many as a chance for decision-makers to take stock of where the world has gone wrong in the past 20 years and see if it can be turned around.

Formerly in the realm of science fiction, geo-engineering, or deliberate manipulation of Earth systems to alter the climate, has been gaining ground as a possible – even necessary, some argue – response to the climate crisis.

High-risk measures such as blasting particles into the stratosphere to mimic volcanic eruptions (blocking sunlight to cool global warming), or seeding oceans to grow plankton blooms for carbon sequestration, are now being floated at UN level.

Last month the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agreed to come up with scientific terms to assess the risks, costs, benefits and social-economic impacts of this controversial new technology, originally conceived as a military strategy.

There have been questions over whether the scientific panel on climate is really as policy neutral as it claims. The scientific steering group for the IPCC meeting has come under fire for including advocates who have patents pending on geo-engineering technologies and other financial interests.

A spokesperson for ETC group’ (pronounced ‘etcetera’), formerly the Rural Advancement Foundation International, said: “We do not want these dangerous technologies developed. They are a new threat from the very same countries that are responsible for the climate crisis in the first place.”

The governments of the US and UK appear especially open to the prospect of geo-engineering, which is no surprise, according to Silvia Ribeiro, a journalist and environmental campaigner who has followed the negotiations of many UN environmental treaties.

As Latin America director for the ETC group, she sees the technology as “a convenient way for northern governments to get around emissions reduction”.

“Manipulating climate in one place could have grave environmental, social and economic impacts on people that have no say on the issue. Scientists estimate that blasting particles into the stratosphere could alter monsoon and wind patterns and put at risk food and water sources for two billion people,” explains Ribeiro.

Given the rising trends of global temperature, hunger, water scarcity, and biodiversity loss, the existing mishmash of eco-governance has obviously failedto deliver a solid strategy ofsustainable development.

Democratic election cycles and short-term profit expectations create systematic discrimination against thinking long term. As a result we see treatment of the symptoms instead of transformation at the levels needed.

The difference between the amount of talk and the lack of political courage to act is huge. Yet Maja Gopel, director of FutureJustice programme run by the World Future Council, believes there is a groundswell of people and initiatives seeking to bridge that gap.

Based in Brussels, the council was set up in 2007 to advise on creating frameworks to keep the world ‘ecologically intact’ for current and future generations with political decision-makers as its main target.

“This is a campaign for political courage,” explains Dr Gopel, adding, “we hope we can inspire governments to turn Rio plus 20 into a game-changing event.

Last month the European Commission made public its position ahead of submitting to the UN conference, and received praise for its clear support of a tax reform that would see a shift of taxation from labour to resource consumption, along with abolition ofunsustainable subsidies.

However, the World Future Council was not happy with other parts of the EC communication:

“The call for new financing mechanisms does not address structural threats to green business solutions exerted by the current system. Without a wide-ranging reform of investment regulations, corporate charters and reporting standards we will not break the short-termism of today’s return-on-investment expectations, quarterly reporting, myopic reward schemes andspeculation patterns.”

Active checks on unsustainable business conduct is needed to foster a true green economy which creates jobs and eradicates poverty by investing in and preserving the natural capital upon which the long-term survival of our planet depends.

The definition of ‘governance’ in itself is up for review. Should we simply be talking about management and allocation of resources in a green economy? Or do we need a broader societal process of defining how we want to live?

Concrete summit proposals on water, energy, ecosystems, agriculture, forests and green enterprises lack overarching mechanisms to ensure policy coherence.

People were placed at the heart of the first sustainable development conference in 1992 with a clear human rights angle expressed as an obligation to meet the needs of present generations without depriving future generations of the same rights.

Today sustainable development risks being flattened into a techno-fix business opportunity.

On the hopeful side, a rescue package calls for local and national “ombudspersons for future generations” to tackle weak monitoring and accountability in current governance structures.

Sign up to our free newsletters