Blog post: China, climate justice and Mark Lynas

15 January 2010

Kate Blagojevic, Press Officer

The post-Copenhagen showdown has featured politicians, NGOs and commentators like George Monbiot and Mark Lynas slogging it out over whether to blame the US or China, for the lack of progress in Copenhagen. All reminiscent of our 2007 report; Blame it on China?

Yesterday it got a little more personal when Mark Lynas, in the New Statesman, suggested that it is wrong to call for climate justice. Mark accuses the World Development Movement of saying “anything calling into question the roles of developing countries must be a plot by the rich former colonial powers”. I have trawled our website and can't remember writing that. Perhaps he is referring to the fact that we were tough on Obama; tough on Brown and tough on rich countries, who were trying to save face but not the climate.

In his article, Mark Lynas misunderstands what climate justice means. The concepts of climate justice and climate debt originated in developing countries. They are based on demanding equality and compensation for the climate change that rich countries have caused. Climate justice does not mean giving carte blanche to developing countries to increase their carbon emissions. In fact, it is the opposite.

The international coalition of campaigners and activists Climate Justice Now! and Climate Justice Action are demanding that fossil fuels must be left in the ground, sustainable food production must increase and excessive consumption must be reduced. Yes, first by rich countries, but also by elites in developing counties.

Climate justice means rich countries paying their climate debt by radically cutting their carbon emissions; but also paying compensation for developing countries to finance the transition to become low carbon economies, and to adapt to the ravages that climate change will cause.

Climate justice is about rejecting the business interests and their market solutions that are capturing governments and blocking any progress that puts people above profits. This is why we are seeing now, as we have always seen at the WTO, negotiators from rich countries bullying developing countries to sign a deal that condemns the poorest people to misery, but keeps profits safe.

The China blame game from rich country PR machines is a tactic to detract attention from the fact rich countries want to continue to use huge amounts of fossil fuels for decades to come.

In the aftermath of the Copenhagen failure, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband blamed various developing countries for 'holding the world to ransom'. But what various commentators failed to report was that it was the UK which effectively blackmailed the world to try and force through the unjust and ineffective 'Obama Accord'. Ed Miliband told developing countries they would not get any of the ‘upto’ $10 billion a year on offer if they would not endorse the deal. The short-term finance on offer is not only a pittance, it’s an allocation of what’s already out there: existing aid money, loans which will increase unjust debts; and corporate-controlled World Bank finance.

Rightly, the Tuvalu representative compared the money to 30 pieces of silver, and WDM condemned this as paying developing countries to sign their own death warrant.

Mark says that two wrongs don't make a right. We know that and that's why we believe that the 'Obama Accord' was both wrong for people and wrong for the planet.

"Misunderstands" or misrepresents?

By saying NGOs think that “anything calling into question the roles of developing countries must be a plot by the rich former colonial powers”, Lynas is appealing to cliche and lazy preconception rather than attempting to have a substantive discussion on the merits of the factual record. He trotted out the same lines after Copenhagen. Lynas has form in misrepresenting the facts. After Copenhagen, he said in a Guardian article that the US offer of a 17% cut in emissions on 2005 levels was a "serious" offer. Everyone even vaguely involved in the climate debate knows we need a 40% cut on 1990 levels at least to give us a fighting chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees. And everyone involved knows that the US offer translates to 1990 levels as a pitiful four per cent. This Lynas called "serious". Lynas relayed US govt spin and false accounting while lecturing "leftists" about their starry eyed view of developing countries. Sadly, the Guardian bought this nonsense hook, line and sinker, and now the New Statesmen has too. Lynas's personal credentials make this brand of nonsense he's spouting increasingly dangerous to people like yourselves, who are serious about climate change. Have you thought about exercising your right to reply with the NS? This needs to be effectively rebutted. Meantime, keep up the excellent work. Best wishes, David Wearing

Posted by Anonymous on 15 Jan 2010 at about 14:36.

Climate 'justice' and China

Thanks for this - I don't pretend at all to have the final answer to any of these issues, so debate is useful and interesting. I'm primarily interested in getting the right ecological outcome, however, rather than the politics of getting there - I suppose I have to admit that upfront. As advisor to the Maldives, I think the policy of 1.5C/350ppm is essential for the survival of many vulnerable countries, and I hope WDM and Stop Climate Chaos update their policies accordingly - calling for 2 degrees is no longer good enough. Reading through WDM literature, particularly the 'Climate Debt Crisis' report, one could be forgiven for thinking that climate change could entirely be solved by mitigation in 'Northern' countries. But we know that global peaking must happen about now for 1.5, by 2015 or so for 2C, and we also know that industrialised countries have probably peaked already. In other words, the overwhelming majority of the future emissions of carbon are projected to come from developing countries. This is interesting, because whilst there is much talk about the awfulness of sins already committed (climate 'debt' etc) there is no mention at all of sins yet to be committed, which there is still time to avoid. As far as I can tell, the NGOs have no 'ask' at all for China or other big, rapidly-growing developing world emitters. Without any mitigation plans (quantified - i.e. with numbers) none of the policy outcomes can be achieved. China knows this, of course, which is why it ensured that neither Annex 1 (rich country) targets, nor global targets remained in the Copenhagen Accord. (Blaming Obama for this is silly - I saw the Chinese representative personally insist on the removal of these numbers.) Here are some relevant numbers: even if Annex 1 (rich countries) take on a 60% cut on 1990 levels by 2030 (which they should in my view; be in no doubt about this), then developing countries must cut by 30% or more below 'business as usual'. As the world's largest emitter (and growing proportionally all the time) China must be 20% below 1990 levels by 2050 for the world to have much chance of the 2C target, obviously much less for the 1.5C target vulnerable countries want to see. So I leave you with a question: what does WDM demand of China? We know all about the demands of rich countries. But it's odd to try to solve climate change without asking anything specific (and I mean numbers) from the world's no.1 polluter. Isn't it? Cheers, Mark

Posted by Anonymous on 15 Jan 2010 at about 16:04.

Re: Climate 'justice' and China

Dear Mark, I find it odd that you managed to read the World Development Movement ‘Climate debt crisis’ report without seeing any reference to mitigation in southern countries. The whole report is based on the concept of climate debt, part of which is that climate change means southern countries cannot use fossil fuels in the same way as northern countries have, and so therefore need the finance and technology for cleaner, more equitable development. (You can read for yourself at http://www.wdm.org.uk/climatedebtreport) In talking about China, we must always remember it is only the world’s biggest polluter because it has the world’s highest population. Emissions per person are still 4 tonnes compared to 12 tonnes in the UK and over 20 tonnes in the US. Any effective and just global agreements for tackling climate change will of course involve targets for the emissions of China and other similar countries, alongside large and quick reductions in northern emissions, and the finance and technology to assist in meeting the actions agreed in the south. In Copenhagen, rich countries refused to make any significant commitments to reducing emissions, or for providing finance and technology. On emissions, the US says its emissions can be as high in 2020 as in 1990. The EU says emissions will be 10 per cent lower. This is from countries which first signed-up to cutting emissions in 1992. Their focus on targets for 2050 is a distraction punting the problem decades into the future where others will be accountable. Targets for decades time without meaningful action now is worthless. China blocking targets for 2050 was not a good thing. But if they had been agreed, Copenhagen would not have been a success. Any deal allowing rich countries to maintain their fossil fuel addiction for decades to come would be a disaster. On finance, the Obama Accord promoted by rich countries says two things. One is $8 billion a year for the next three years for tackling climate change in developing countries. All of this is from pre-existing aid commitments, so just reallocating aid from elsewhere. A lot of it has been announced many times before going back to 2007. Much of it is loans, increasing unjust debts. The second figure was that $100 billion will be needed a year in developing countries by 2020 to tackle climate change, but there are no specific commitments from any country, or mechanisms created for getting the money, such as a tax on financial transactions. Again, the figure is meaningless. However, the EU and US have said they would expect developing countries to contribute much of the $100 billion. http://www.wdm.org.uk/facts-behind-climate-finance-figures Mark - I have some questions for you. In your Guardian article after Copenhagen you wrote: “The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.” A 17% cut in US emissions is an effective cut of 4% on 1990 levels, the basis on which international negotiations take place. It also allows for much of the ‘reduction’ to happen through buying carbon offsets rather than the US actually reducing its own emissions. How on earth do you regard this as a serious cut, and being anywhere near what is needed to keep to 1.5C? If you are concerned about rich countries cutting emissions, why do you not mention that the EU has offered to cut its own emissions by just 10 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020? Or do you think this is enough to keep to 1.5C? Why did you say the US had offered $100 billion to developing countries for adaptation, when it had offered precisely $0 for either adaptation or mitigation in developing countries in 2020, as has the EU? Cheers, Tim Jones, Policy Officer, World Development Movement

Posted by Anonymous on 15 Jan 2010 at about 17:34.

climate justice

The way we understand climate justice is that wealthy nations should acknowledge their historical responsibility, that for 250 years they have been emiting green house gases that have generated a climate change that is affecting all the world, particulary it is generating climate desasters in those vulnerable empoverished nations and sectors that have emited almost nothing to the atmosphere. And that is not fair, it is an injustice. It must also be remembered that many countries have been empoverished because of centuries of colonialism carried out by the same nations and sectors mainly responsible for climate change. So a social and ecological debt has been generated. Now acknowledging historical responsibility means that wealthy nations should: 1. Reduce their levels of material consumption 2. Make a transition to a zero carbon economy 3. Provide funds, as a way of paying some of the social and ecological debt, for empoverished nations to make a transition to a zero carbon economy and for empoverished people to cope with cilimate change impacts, some people call that adaptation, I call that survival. 4. Devote efforts to rehabilitate ecosystems in the Northern countries. Likewise we in the southernn countries have to: 1: Demand the cancelation of the social and ecological debt so we can make that transition to a zero carbon economy, survive climate disasters and improve living conditions of empoverished sectors. 2. Reduce material consumption of the wealthy classes. 3. Rehabilitate our ecosystems. Ricardo Navarro CESTA FOE El Salvador.

Posted by Anonymous on 15 Jan 2010 at about 18:26.

Post new comment

Help our campaigns by supporting us today.

Join us as a member
Make a cash donation
Find out other ways to help