The debate about climate change is divided between the “Copenhagen Accord” that failed to be imposed by a group of countries led by the United States at the Copenhagen Conference held in December 2009, and the “People´s Agreement” that synthesizes the conclusions of the 17 working groups at the World People´s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth carried out in Cochabamba, Boliva from April 20th to 22nd, 2010.
The “People´s Agreement” stems from an integral vision of climate change, incorporating the issue of the structural causes of the climate crisis, the rupture of harmony with nature, the need to recognize the rights of Mother Earth in order to guarantee human rights, the importance of creating a Tribunal of Climate and Environmental Justice, the development of global democracy so that the people can decide on this issue affecting and the planet and all of humanity.
On the other hand, the Copenhagen Accord represents a step backward with relation to the Kyoto Protocol by proposing a methodology of voluntary commitments for the industrialized countries that are principally responsible for climate change.
COMPARISON
PEOPLE´S AGREEMENT | COPENHAGEN ACCORD |
Limit for Average Global Temperature Increase |
|
Limit global temperature increase during the present century to 1º C in order to reduce the effects of climate change. For this, it is proposed that the world return to greenhouse gas concentrations of 300ppm. |
Limit the increase in temperature to 2º C, and, following an evaluation in 2015, see if it is possible to reach the goal of 1.5 º C. |
Greenhouse Gas Reductions |
|
50% reduction based on 1990 levels for the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol (2013-2017), excluding carbon markets or other types of compensation.Demands that the United States ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Puts forth that all developed countries must make comparable reductions: for example, the US cannot reduce by 3% and the EU by 30%. Rejects attemps to annul the Kyoto Protocol. | Does not set an aggregate goal for all developed countries. Proposes voluntary reductions commitments by developed countries, which means that they must only state what they plan to do.Does not establish criteria for comparable reductions among developed countries.Does not state that reductions should occur under the framework of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.According to the European Comission, voluntary commitments allocated thus far under the Copenhagen Accord represent real reductions of just 2% based on 1990 levels. |
Climate Debt |
|
Developed countries have a climate debt toward developing countries, Mother Earth, and future generations. This climate debt consists of: returning the atmospheric space that has been occupied by the greenhouse gas emissions of developed countries, thereby affecting other countries; a debt to Mother Earth that should be honored through the recognition and implementiation of a Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth at the United Nations; a debt to climate change migrants; a debt with regard to adaptation and development consisting of the costs developing countries must incurr to respond to the grave impacts of climate change. |
No mention of climate debt. |
Financing |
|
Financing should be set aside for climate change in an amount greater than that which developed countries currently budget for defense, war, and security spending.Financing should should reach 6% of GDP for the developed countries historically responsible for climate change, should come from public funds not linked to carbon market mechanisms, and be in addition to Official Development Assistance. | Approximately 30 billion US dollars for the period 2010-2012, which represents 0.005% of the annual GDP of developed countries.Mobilize 100 billion US dollars by 2020 to attend to the needs of developing countries, which amounts to 0.05% of GDP.Approximately 50% of this financing would come from the carbon market. |
Technology Transfer |
|
Creation of a Multilateral and Multidisciplinary Mechanism that guarantees technology transfer for climate change that is free of intellectual property rights. | Proposes a Technology Mechanism, but it is unclear whether this will simply be a showcase of available technologies.No mention of the need for changes to regimes of intellectual property rights. |
Carbon Markets |
|
Rejects the carbon market and other forms of dealing with climate change based on the market. | Promotes the use of carbon markets and proposes the creation of new market mechanisms. |
Forests |
|
Rejects market mechanisms for the reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.Proposes the creation of a mechanism that, unlike REDD+ or ++, respects the sovereignty of States, guarantees the rights of indigenous peoples and communities that live in forests, and is not based on carbon market mechanisms. | Proposes incentives for actions related to REDD based on the carbon market. |
Food and Agriculture |
|
To confront the climate crisis, we must bring about a profound shift toward the sustainable models of agricultural production used by indigenous and farming communities, and other models and ecological practices that contribute to solving the problem of climate change and guaranteeing food soveriegnty. | No mention of food and agriculture. |
Reclassification of Countries |
|
Rejects the reclassification of developing countries according to their vulnerability. Respect for and application of Article 4.8 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). |
Promotes the reclassification of developing countries according to climate change, giving preferential treatment according to vulnerability. |
Climate Migrants |
|
Protection and recognition of the rights and needs of those forced to migrate due to climate change. Highlights the need to raise this issue in negotiations. | No mention of migration caused by climate change. |
Justice and Fulfillment of International Commitments |
|
Proposes the adoption of legally binding mechanisms to guarantee compliance with international treaties, as well as the creation of a Climate and Environmental Justice Tribunal. | Does not propose any mechanism for remedying compliance with international commitments by developed countries. |
Referendum on Climate Change |
|
Proposes a World Referendum on Climate Change so that the people can decide on this issue, one that is of vital importance to the future of humanity and Mother Earth. | No mention of a mechanism for consulting populations. |
Indigenous Peoples |
|
Recognition and revalorization of indigenous roots of all humanity and full respect for the rights of indigenous peoples. | No mention of indigenous peoples. |
Rights of Mother Earth |
|
Proposes to discuss and approve in the United Nations a Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth to reestablish harmony with nature. In an inter-dependent system, it is impossible to recognize rights for only the human side of that system. The only way to defend human rights is to also recognize the rights of Mother Earth. These rights include the Earth´s right to life, the right to regenerate its biocapacity, the right to maintain its integrity, and the right of all to a clean environment. | No mention of the rights of Mother Earth. |
Structural Causes |
|
Proposes to analyze and modify the structural causes of climate change. Affirms that these have to do with the capitalist system that is centered on the maximization of profit and the exploitation and commodification of nature. | No mention of the structural causes of climate change. |
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 16, 2010 at 3:41 pm
colehons
Thank you for the concise side-by-side comparison. It really brings home the contrast between Copenhagen & Bolivia. I hope and pray the Bolivian way may come to see the light of day!
June 18, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Keith Lampe
There’s a tremendously important item missing from both versions: an up-to-date understanding of the best replacements for coal/oil/nuclear/gas.
This letter written more than a year ago by Physicist/Inventor Adam Trombly provides a clear outline of what’s possible now–thanks to recent technological breakthroughs:
An Open Letter to President Obama
April 5, 2009 – I am responding to the many enquiries I have been receiving regarding my near silence over the last months. I understand your concerns and the anxiety you may be feeling as the old order crashes and burns. It is not a time when it is easy to feel warm and cozy about life on Earth.
The old archons of greed and willful destruction have parasitized our countries and our planet for long enough. The time has come to make a choice between the awakening light or the darkness of denial. We must choose if we will content ourselves with half-hearted “solutions” or whether we will embrace real solutions that can actually even at this late date make life fun again.
The mess that has been created on this planet is beyond belief. There is no town nor any sector of Earth whatsoever that has not been wounded by the old order of loveless survival.
A few summers ago I had the opportunity of hearing an amazing presentation at the Aspen Institute by two remarkable scientists, John P. Holdren and Nathan S. Lewis. In the course of an hour and a half these two gentlemen summarized why it is that all of the “alternative energy technologies” that are currently mainstream could not compensate for the amount of energy produced worldwide by fossil fuels. In other words all of these technologies together could not counterbalance the damage of carbon fuel technologies nor could they come close to equalling the output. I had never before heard a more eloquent or concise presentation regarding this subject.
This is another reason I write tonight. I just heard one of the most hopeful things I have heard since the Inauguration of Barack Obama. The new President has named John Holdren to be his chief science advisor.
This is actually very good news. John Holdren will not lead the new President down the primrose path of false hopes based on solar, wind and nuclear power. John Holdren knows and can clearly articulate why it is we need a new form of energy generating technology.
What I can say to our new President is this:
Mr. President,
You have called for a revolution in energy technology that is up to the challenge of this most difficult time. Zero Point Vacuum Fluctuation Technologies can meet that challenge. Examples of these technologies exist already in both the government and private domains.
These technologies once developed and deployed will transform the economy and the environment in ways that are hard to imagine. A few of my colleagues and I have spent the last several decades researching and reducing to practice different manifestations of this art.
Mr President as Commander in Chief of the United States Military you can ask for full disclosure of these technologies and in the spirit of change which swept you into office see that they are developed and deployed for the sake of the People and for the sake of the Earth.
Ask who Edwin Gray was Mr. President. He worked for the Navy and was kept under what he called “house arrest” in a rural setting in Idaho until his untimely death.
Ed Gray was my friend and colleague and the same U.S. Naval Intelligence officer was our handler. Ed Gray produced motor/generator sets that could have changed the world for the better. These devices could more than dectuple output vs.input ratios. In other words Mr. President ten times more electrical power came out of Ed’s machines than went in.
Ed ended up making weapons, instead of helping to save the world, Mr. President and then he died with a broken heart. I could go on with more examples but even if you just saw what the Navy has, you would be blown away. I am not asking you to believe in any of the technologies I have been fortunate to co-invent. Just find out about Ed Gray’s work and start there.
If you do this, Mr. President, then we will have a fighting chance both economically and environmentally. Think of a world where fuel is utterly obsolete. Think of the reduction in capital expenditures that would represent. We could finally pay off the incredible debt that it has become necessary to enter in to in order to attempt to right this listing ship of state.
Mr. President please hear this for the sake of all humanity and even the Earth itself. Zero Point Vacuum Fluctuation based technologies represent real change. They represent a quantum leap for us all.
If anyone in a leadership position tells you that these technologies simply don’t exist, then ask them why it was that on page 193 of the FY 1986 Department of Defense Program Solicitation, AF86-77, item 6 proposals for research into “Esoteric energy sources for propulsion including the zero point quantum dynamic energy of vacuum space” were solicited. If this is such a ridiculous concept then why was this an item in that solicitation? (I have a copy if they can’t find it.) Whatever I can do to serve this process I would be more than happy to do. There are other friends and colleagues who can also be of service. We need only be asked.
Adam Trombly
Director, Institute for Advanced Studies at Aspen/ Project Earth
————————————————–
For all our relations,
Keith Lampe aka Ro-Non-So-Te and Pondo
Co-founder, US environmental movement in 1969, Living Creatures
Associates in 1972, All-Species Projects in 1978 and founder, US
Pro-Democracy Movement in 1991
Vilcabamba, Ecuador
June 30, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Adam Zemans
Thank you for this concise comparison.
Given that humanity’s timeline is that we need a workable agreement by Cancun, Environment Las Americas/Bolivia recommends a truly “balanced” approach, which avoids one extreme or the other.
Godspeed.
Adam Zemans, Founder and Executive Director, Environment Las Americas/Bolivia.
July 14, 2010 at 5:00 am
Kimbowa Richard
Ignoring food and agriculture (a mainstay) as it turns out to be by the Copenhagen Accord implies that Africa is left in the cold.
On the contrary, if we are to confront the climate change challenge, farmers need to see themselves as part of the solution rather than being left out along with their options to fight hunger, starvation and land degradation in the rural areas ( that involves reflecting on energy use, soil and land management, forestry related issues, water resources management, biodiversity conservation etc)