 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
World Summit 2002Two items follow: first, the Original Challenge, and then, our personal correspondence with Micheal Meacher, the UK Minister for the Environment at that time. The Original Challenge to the UK GovernmentThis is the only publicised version, for permission was specifically given to display it on this web-site when UNED UK decided it was too controversial to present at its own conference in January 2002. However, it was later submitted to the Department for Food and Rural Affairs, in response to invitations to present views on Sustainable Development. PREPARED FOR UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT & DEVELOPMENT UK COMMITTEE (UNED UK) ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE WORKING GROUP October 2001 We call upon you to present to the Earth Summit 2002 a proposal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere by at least 60% instead of the minimal amount agreed at the Bonn Conference in July 2001, on the grounds that this extent of reductions is the minimum necessary in order to stabilise carbon concentrations at 450 parts per million within a few decades and thereafter fall below the levels in 1990. [1] We are well aware that, in order to effect such an extent of reductions, huge changes are required at every scale, from the individual person to the global, in the private, educational, professional, commercial, economic, financial, administrative and governmental spheres. We are also aware that the largest economy of the world, in the USA, has already dismissed its own commitment to reduce emissions by 7% at the Kyoto Summit as politically and economically 'unrealistic'. However, we know that human institutions are capable of change, since they are created by human beings and are therefore potentially under their control. Since this does not apply to the forces of nature, which are already revealing the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions by human beings, the only rational, wise and passionate response is to face the changes which have to be made, on a higher order of realism. THE FIRST HURDLE: AWARENESS RAISING The first problem that we consider needs to be tackled is awareness raising about the extent of the climatic dangers and the need for change at every scale and in every sphere. This involves considerably more than issuing information and publicity, because numerous counter-incentives to awareness raising also have to be tackled and overcome. These are most obvious in the media because it reflects numerous conflicting interests which confuse the viewing, listening and the reading public. Existing efforts to spell out the need for cutting down on carbon emitting travel, for example, are countered by assertive marketing of carbon emitting vehicles and air-travel as well as the values and culture that elevates their use and lifestyle. The ownership and advertising revenue of much of the media and subsequent direct or indirect control of the published content, furthermore produce disincentives to highlighting climatic dangers and lifestyle changes that are expected to undermine current profitability levels. The same or similar interests that control much of the media understandably try to prevail on the government to support their current modes of production, operation and sources of income and profit. In the absence of legal hindrances, these forms of influence can extend to donations to political parties which then oblige the party in government to favour their interests above those of the electorate. Such practices thereby weaken the democratic representation of elected members both generally and at the time of elections, expressed in low turnouts, apathy and cynicism among the electorate. The government is particularly hindered from raising awareness about and responding to climate change issues by economic problems arising in fossil-fuel dependent industries, particularly where potential losses of jobs are involved, as happens from time to time in the coal, car-manufacturing and airline industries. This conflict of interests extends directly to the public, as most poignantly expressed in reductions in petrol taxes the day after the Prime Minister's last major speech on the environment, when he committed himself to attend next year's Earth Summit personally. The attendant perception of the economy, on the part of government and most institutions, as being founded on current forms of energy, production and marketing processes, makes it very difficult to conceive of and realise an economy which embraces renewable forms of energy and reduced energy use. This is made doubly difficult on account of obligations which have been entered into through EU and international trade agreements and bodies that favour fossil-fuel dependent industries and corporations. On a less obvious level, the government cannot help but be compromised to some extent by commercial sponsorships and faculty chairs in universities that favour industries which are presently fossil fuel dependent, together with commercial representation on grants awarding research councils, and bodies that are claimed to be 'Independent'. Furthermore it can lead to government avoidance of responsibility in its use of research 'findings' in claiming objectivity and neutrality in areas where it, or its industrial lobbyists, have hidden agendas. All of these pressures are liable to result in misleading messages put out by government (spin), which promise action on 'sustainable' energy and climate change, while falling short of delivery, and revealing inconsistent and insufficiently enforced legislation, fiscal measures, taxes and levies to reduce carbon emissions, damage to the environment and externalisation of costs. These shortcomings inevitably create disbelief and distrust within the electorate, not only on directly related matters but also on issues of democratic representation. FACING THE CHANGES THAT HAVE TO BE MADE All these difficulties have to be overcome that prevent both awareness raising by the government on the extent of climate dangers, and facing the changes that need to be made in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere by at least 60%. Of course those reductions have to be made worldwide. Yet, a strategy for facing the changes in the UK is not only a moral obligation, but also a necessary demonstration that what has to occur in one country, can be applied in principle if not in detail, elsewhere. As our elected government you have the mechanisms to determine how these and other difficulties which are unknown to us are best overcome. However, it appears to us that they need to include the following actions:
Correspondence with Michael MeacherMichael Meacher's reply to our first challenging letter in February 2002- on behalf of finally over 200 people - eventually arrived on 8 August just before WSSD and got drowned out by all the pre-Summit publicity at the time. We wrote back on 14 August and he replied a second time on 18 November . There was not much to say about it at the time as it signified little real progress, but we used the opportunity presented by the New Year 2003 to bring climate change once more to the top of the environmental agenda - in our final letter. _____________________________________________________ Our letters to Michael Meacher are coloured light blue and his back to us are in orange. _____________________________________________________________________ Friday
22 February 2002 Dear Michael Meacher, Proposal to the World Summit on radical reductions in greenhouse gases Further to your answer to a question on this subject at the UNED UK Conference on 22 January, we agree with you that this Summit must address the deep anxiety felt about the impact of economic development on poverty as well as the environment. The choice of venue for the Summit underlines this. We share the conviction of the International Institute for the Environment and Development & the Regional and International Networking Group, that to succeed, our efforts to avert Climate Change, eradicate poverty and make development sustainable must reinforce one another. We also share their concern that there may not be a better opportunity than Johannesburg to secure continuity for an equitable climate process to develop beyond Kyoto. In addition, we consider it essential for a proposal to be taken to this World Summit on radical reductions in greenhouse gasses, integrated within the Contraction and Convergence framework. This proposal will assist the subsequent negotiations at COP-8 to begin to address the increasingly dangerous reality beyond the first-step time-frame of the Kyoto Protocol. It also reflects the position of the IIED and RING authors and a rising number of MPs and institutions here and abroad. We consider the reductions have to be commensurate with the need for their stabilisation as indicated by the IPCC scientists. We strongly agree with the former Executive Secretary of the UNFCC Secretariat that a specific stabilisation figure and a time-scale beyond Kyoto for achieving it should be suggested. We further consider that a specific figure for the necessary reductions, in excess of 60% worldwide within the next 50 years, must be presented. We urge you to recommend this set of proposals to the Prime Minister for him to present in person to the Summit. It suits the 'big idea' governments have been calling for and we will support all your efforts to secure this. Yours sincerely,
Jackie Carpenter,
Director, for ENERGY 21 In order to keep this letter short, supporting arguments are appended in the following footnotes. In addition to those people and organisations listed above as supporting the contents of this open letter on this date, further names will be forwarded in the next few weeks, as a result of the letter and footnotes being displayed on the Save our World and other web-sites. Footnotes Why this World Summit?
For two further reasons to that given in the letter. The disparity
between the reductions agreed since Kyoto and those which we are
reliably informed to be essential for stabilisation of carbon concentrations
in the atmosphere is already vast, and can only become increasingly
difficult for governments and industries to face, the longer that
is delayed. In addition, Climate Change is already dropping down
the UN agenda, not specifically mentioned as one of the key areas
for this Summit which were given at the Conference, for the It was observed, earlier in the Conference, that the concept of Agenda 21 has largely been subsumed and left unmentioned within local government 'community strategies'. Concern is felt lest Climate Change similarly drop out of public attention, at the very time that you, those connected with UNED UK and others, are most concerned Commission figure of 60%. Sir John Houghton, chair of the IPCC in 1999, has been quoted as saying 'more than 60% in less than 100 years' for the purposes of stabilising rising concentrations. Others have calculated the need for as much as 90% reductions for the UK. You are probably aware of SERA's proposals for 20% by 2010 'with a long-term strategy in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a further 1% per year', and The Noah Declaration, through which signatories 'urge the world leaders to agree without delay a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 60% worldwide, while giving all nations an equal opportunity for prosperity'. Whatever figure is given, it has to be specific and memorable despite the risks that entails, in order for it to be recognised by ordinary people as a real collective challenge for the countries of the world which shall be made at this Summit. If it is objected that this proposal is not 'politically realistic', it can be pointed out the only 'reality' is that Climate Change will (continue to) happen and accelerate without commensurate action being taken urgently, and that all else is not 'realism' but political 'acceptability' that has to change. If it helps to present Climate Change as the greatest global security issue at this time, given that the language of "security" is understood by the US and currently has priority over all other considerations for them - so be it, so long as it is distinguished from associations of 'technological fixes', in place of a real appreciation of species survival issues, or, better still, a fundamental attitude of caring stewardship for the planet. Certainly, the creation of new industries and markets in renewable forms of energy will provide a basis for real future economic security. If it is objected that this proposal would not receive support from developing countries, particularly at this time and at this venue, surely the perfect opportunity is provided to explain that the Contraction and Convergence framework would respond to their interests in the most equitable way. For this framework to be seen in a wider environmental context, we recommend consideration of the overall carrying capacity of the planet for all human activity within the concept of Environmental Space. If
it is objected that the impacts of Climate Change are not yet apparent
to any but the scientists, the evidence of changes already occurring
can also be presented, some of it dramatic and over the last few
days, as you no doubt are aware. Another El Nino is also said to
be on its way this year, and that could be very obvious by the time
of the Summit. The original of the following letter from Mr Meacher can also be read by clicking on the following link: Meacher 08 FROM THE RT HON MICHAEL
MEACHER MP Nobel
House DEFRA
Thank you for your letter of 22 February regarding a proposal on radical reductions in greenhouse gases to the World Summit of Sustainable Development (WSSD). I am sorry for the delay in replying to you. I share your concerns that action to tackle climate change should be pressed forward and understand the emphasis you place on the close relationship between climate change and sustainable development. WSSD certainly presents an opportunity for exploring these links. Indeed, WSSD will mark the tenth anniversary of the Rio "Earth Summit" which, amongst other things set in process the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC). You express a fear that climate change is slipping down the UN agenda. However, I believe it remains one of the UN's highest priorities. In fact, climate change has implications for all the UN's interests and we are working to promote an integrated approach to address climate change in ensuring that it is not ring-fenced, but is taken into account in every possible policy area. In discussing sustainable development, issues related to climate change such as the availability of fresh water, energy supply, capacity building and many others will be addressed. It is therefore envisaged that there will not be any long negotiations on climate change at WSSD, as the ongoing UNFCCC process remains the best forum for taking forward this issue, particularly given the successful outcome of Marrakech. Given this approach, WSSD is not the most appropriate forum for the Prime Minister to make a proposal along the lines you suggest on reductions of greenhouse gases to WSSD. I agree that it is important that the international community focuses on ratifying the Kyoto Protocol in 2002 as this remains the only workable basis for taking forward global action to tackle climate change and moving towards achieving the UNFCCC's ultimate objective of stabilising emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a safe level. As I am sure you are aware, the UK along with the other EU Member States, ratified the Kyoto Protocol on 31 March. Tackling the global climate change threat will require a future approach which leads to significant emissions reductions while being acceptable to as many countries as possible. Some aspects of the contraction and convergence model are certainly attractive. However, the debate is still in its very early stages, and other ideas and approaches have been proposed that warrant careful consideration. One of our main concerns at present must be to build on comprehensive world-wide support for the Kyoto process. The UK intends to play a proactive role in the debate on future commitments and we are already engaging our international partners on this issue. Yours sincerely Michael
____________________________________________________________________ Wednesday
14 August 2002
Proposal to the World Summit on radical reductions in greenhouse gases Congratulations on your reinstatement in the delegation to WSSD. I am very pleased to receive your reply of 8 August, in response to the letter I first sent you on 22 February, on behalf of originally thirty individuals and organisations - which have since grown to over two hundred. Although you state 'WSSD is not the most appropriate forum for the Prime Minister to make a proposal along the lines you suggest on reductions of greenhouse gases', surely it is the "Summit of all Summits" (to quote Charles Secrett on the BBC Today Programme on 12 August) for the kind of statement that we propose for Tony Blair - in order to establish a direction for the next UNFCCC meeting, and for world leaders generally. His statement does not need to be associated with 'long negotiations on climate change', which I agree would be inappropriate at WSSD. I understand that reference there to the countries supporting the Kyoto protocol is, in any case, only to be an announcement. Besides, if Tony Blair is just making a fleeting visit to WSSD, he can hardly be expected to attend the UNFCCC meeting. You have been quoted in the press over the last weekend as saying 'fellow ministers are failing to recognise that the world is heading towards environmental catastrophe'. And yet your letter implies that WSSD is not the right forum for raising the alarm. You say that climate change is not slipping down the UN agenda, and is implicit in many of the topics being raised, which we both know but many others are hiding from themselves and others. The fact that it is not explicitly on the agenda removes the stark necessity for delegates to focus on the one topic for which finite limits to growth are clear. You are also quoted, last weekend, as saying 'Johannesburg (unlike the Rio Summit) will set targets and timescales..' Surely the ones given in my original letter are the most significant ones for tackling this huge underlying problem. It has been suggested, at least since the PrepComIII meeting for WSSD, that the real reason why climate change is not explicitly on the WSSD agenda is not its inappropriateness, but veiled or feared threats from dissenting countries to the Kyoto protocol, to challenge its legitimacy and so disrupt its ratification by the rest of the world. However, at this late stage, this must surely be very unlikely, especially with the ratification only being made an announcement. I have heard from delegates at the PrepCom meetings, that the most prominent dissenting country keeps wringing further concessions from those agreeing to keep climate change off the agenda, as well as backtracking on other past agreements. Are such concessions not totally disproportionate to the extent of the impending catastrophe to which you have alluded? And, given the string of climate-related disasters that are being reported almost daily (of which the 'Asian brown cloud' and severe floods in Prague, across Europe and in other regions are among the latest, at the time of writing), will not the citizens of the world judge the politicians at this Summit like Emperor Nero, as "fiddling while Rome burns" - unless someone like Tony Blair at least lays our challenge on the table for all countries later to address? John Prescott is quoted today in The Guardian as saying, with reference to climate change: 'I am proud that this prime minister and this government have been showing the leadership necessary to deal with the biggest challenge of the twenty-first century'. So how about it? Would that not make Tony Blair's fleeting visit worth the effort?
Jim Scott, Chairperson, for SAVE OUR WORLD C/c Tony Blair The original of the following letter from Mr Meacher can also be read by clicking on the following link: Meacher 11 _____________________________________________________________________ FROM THE RT HON MICHAEL MEACHER MP MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND AGRI-ENVIRONMENT Nobel House DEFRA
18 November 2002
Dear Jim Thank you for your letter of 14 August, following up your earlier letter of 22 February regarding a proposal on radical reductions in greenhouse gases to the World Summit of Sustainable Development (WSSD). I am sorry that I was not able to reply to you before WSSD.
MICHAEL MEACHER
Rt. Hon. Michael Meacher MP, Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment, Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR. Future government action on climate change I am grateful to you for your further letter of 18 November, in response to my second one about our ‘Proposal to the World Summit’, sent to you on 14 August - just before the Summit took place. It would be nice to believe that the supporters of my letters were influential in Tony Blair’s speaking of the necessity for 60% reductions in global greenhouse gases, on the day before his speech to the Summit, especially as this figure had only been officially recognised before with respect to reductions in UK emissions. However, I and the supporters were naturally disappointed that no commitment to radical reductions in greenhouse gases world-wide was presented or agreed at the Summit itself. The timing of your latest letter presents us with a wider perspective, given that COP 8 in Delhi also did not address this challenge. I think that everybody has had to take stock on the subject of climate change, and so the New Year seems an appropriate moment to approach it once more, and afresh. I am glad that Tony Blair has included ‘growing environmental challenges’ in his New Year message, which must surely include climate change, for it underlay all the priority areas for the Summit without being directly mentioned. If I may respond to your latest letter in this light, I have to conclude that there are many worthy actions undertaken by this and other governments to which you refer, but, as described, they are not going to deliver the goods. They are not going to achieve the objective of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to ‘stabilise atmospheric concentrations of GHGs at a level that will prevent dangerous climate change’. The Kyoto Protocol is valuable as an international framework but marginal in pursuing this objective. The ‘good outcomes on issues and key agreements, which’ you assert ‘will work towards reducing climate change’ may provide a start, but ‘reducing climate change’ is no more reassuring than ‘more sustainable development’. Either stabilisation or sustainability is attained or it is not. And on ‘sustainable production and consumption’ I note four preparatory stages or conditions, in your letter, prior to ‘using our resources more efficiently’. The REEEP initiative looks promising, but would surely be far more effective if our government set a compliance date for the manufacture of zero-emitting products on similar lines to the action already taken by the State of California in the United States. For such action both helps to establish markets for renewable energy and energy efficiency systems and, at the same time, alerts the public to the need for a radical change in lifestyle in the face of real climatic dangers. The Delhi Declaration from COP 8, to which you refer, apart from calling ‘for Parties that have ratified the Protocol to urge others to ratify’, ventures no further in practical action on climate change than stating it ‘notes the need for both mitigation and adaptation measures’. One can hardly disagree in principle with your final statement: ‘in an international negotiation such as this, all sides have to compromise’ but has to ask: on what? means or ends? For surely no compromise is possible for dealing with a fire raging out of control, a skier heading for a precipice, or a ship headed for an iceberg - which, as you know, are all apt metaphors (at a far smaller scale) for the way that climate change is presently going - virtually unchecked! We intend to continue with our original challenge to governments to take the necessary practical steps within the critically diminishing time-scale in order to safeguard the stability of the climate - through the methods of coalition-building and campaigning, which we are actively pursuing at the present time. We believe there is a groundswell of concern within civil society which can be articulated and given expression in this way. We also take you at your word, when you addressed the UNED UK Conference in January last year - to welcome more representations of interests and concerns being made to yours and other departments of the government. We trust that such action can be mutually supportive in our joint efforts to pursue the common goal of ecological survival.
Jim Scott, Chairperson, for SAVE OUR WORLD C/c Tony Blair, Margaret Beckett, signatories and supporters of my previous two letters
Please feel free to leave your comments and air your views by clicking on the facility below. Please mention first the relevant title of the Feature or Boiling Point issue you wish to address. If you prefer, you can email your comments directly to :jim@save-our-world.org.uk
____________________________________________________________________ Back to top |
bravenet.com