Pablo Solon, The Guardian, Dec 21, 2010 — Diplomacy is traditionally a game of alliance and compromise. Yet in the early hours of Saturday 11 December, Bolivia found itself alone against the world: the only nation to oppose the outcome of the United Nations climate change summit in Cancún. We were accused of being obstructionist, obstinate and unrealistic. Yet in truth we did not feel alone, nor are we offended by the attacks. Instead, we feel an enormous obligation to set aside diplomacy and tell the truth.
The “Cancún accord” was presented late Friday afternoon, and we were given two hours to read it. Despite pressure to sign something – anything – immediately, Bolivia requested further deliberations. This text, we said, would be a sad conclusion to the negotiations. After we were denied any opportunity to discuss the text, despite a lack of consensus, the president banged her gavel to approve the document.
Many commentators have called the Cancún accord a “step in the right direction.” We disagree: it is a giant step backward. The text replaces binding mechanisms for reducing greenhouse gas emissions with voluntary pledges that are wholly insufficient. These pledges contradict the stated goal of capping the rise in temperature at 2C, instead guiding us to 4C or more. The text is full of loopholes for polluters, opportunities for expanding carbon markets and similar mechanisms – like the forestry scheme Redd – that reduce the obligation of developed countries to act.
Bolivia may have been the only country to speak out against these failures, but several negotiators told us privately that they support us. Anyone who has seen the science on climate change knows that the Cancún agreement was irresponsible.
In addition to having science on our side, another reason we did not feel alone in opposing an unbalanced text at Cancún is that we received thousands of messages of support from the women, men, and young people of the social movements that have stood by us and have helped inform our position. It is out of respect for them, and humanity as a whole, that we feel a deep responsibility not to sign off on any paper that threatens millions of lives.
Some claim the best thing is to be realistic and recognise that at the very least the agreement saved the UN process from collapse.
Unfortunately, a convenient realism has become all that powerful nations are willing to offer, while they ignore scientists’ exhortations to act radically now. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that in order to have a 50% chance of keeping the rise in temperature below 1.5C, emissions must peak by 2015. The attempt in Cancún to delay critical decisions until next year could have catastrophic consequences.
Bolivia is a small country. This means we are among the nations most vulnerable to climate change, but with the least responsibility for causing the problem. Studies indicate that our capital city of La Paz could become a desert within 30 years. What we do have is the privilege of being able to stand by our ideals, of not letting partisan agendas obscure our principal aim: defending life and Earth. We are not desperate for money. Last year, after we rejected the Copenhagen accord, the US cut our climate funding. We are not beholden to the World Bank, as so many of us in the south once were. We can act freely and do what is right.
Bolivia may have acted unusually by upsetting the established way of dealing with things. But we face an unprecedented crisis, and false victories won’t save the planet. False agreements will not guarantee a future for our children. We all must stand up and demand a climate agreement strong enough to match the crisis we confront.
Pablo Solon is the ambassador of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to the United Nations.
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 21, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Karen
VIVA Bolivia. You are supported from many individuals and wise people from the North. It is an honor to stand beside Bolivia. Muchas Gracias Pablo Solon and President Morales.
December 21, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Keith Lampe
Dear Ambassador Solon,
Yours is indeed a splendid statement here.
I suggest, though, that it’s time for us to shift some of our focus from climate warming to climate destabilization because:
1–For more than a decade now several nations whose behavior was among the worst at COP 15 and 16 have been secretly spraying chemtrails (mainly aluminum and barium particles) into our atmosphere–and thus we now have simultaneous warming and cooling. The particles cause pockets of cool air which then merge with adjacent warm air to form storm fronts containing horrendous temperature differences and thus causing greatly increased frequencies and severities of extreme wind and precipitation.
2–There’s now relatively persuasive scientific evidence that we’re entering another “solar minimum” period–this one comparable to the one called Dalton which caused strikingly cold weather from 1798 till 1823. I urge you to check this out at http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/ . Let’s not forget those millions of dead fish several months ago in the extremely cold waters of certain Bolivian rivers.
So it seems appropriate now to focus less on CO2 and more on the fact that it’s becoming more and more difficult to grow our food outdoors. This doesn’t reduce our need to stop burning fossil fuels.
Yours for all our relations,
Keith Lampe aka Pondo and Ro-Non-So-Te
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
PS: It may amuse you to learn that back in ’55 I declined an invitation from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge to join the US delegation to the UN.
December 21, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Edward Mortimer
Gracias. Thank you for standing up and defending Pachamama. Thank you for standing firm and defending all life. Thank you for standing tall and declaring your freedom. Gracias.
December 21, 2010 at 10:50 pm
Adam Zemans
Ambassador Solon,
Yes, the science is clear. Top emitter nations’ inaction is also clear as is the lack of political will for a sufficiently ambitious global Grand Coalition. But what is your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)? You do not have the moral imperative to reject a treaty unless you have a better offer for the people of Bolivia in your pocket!
The evil of the Holocaust was clear too. And negotiations by certain hereos with the Nazis saved thousands of lives that would have otherwise have been lost due to moral objections. Climate change provides an even more compelling reason to negotiate–we do not have a mandate to win World War III because all nations need each other when it comes to climate and delay through holdout opposition will only worsen matters. Your odds are not just poor. Your long-term war on capitalism is self-defeating.
Most of us Bolivians would rather bet on the Cancun Agreements, as reached by all nations, including socialist ones, except for Bolivia, than on your ability to bring home climate change solutions. Unless of course you provide us with national climate change policy that holds out some real hope for something better than we can get from the UNFCCC.
Adam Zemans
Founder and Executive Director
Environment Las Americas/Bolivia
December 26, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Gordon Spafford
I believe it must be clear to everyone that the Cancun agreement does not adequately address the world’s climate problem. Perhaps it’s a step in the right direction but we still have a long way to go and I find it surprising that this fact was recognized at the conference by only one voice, Bolivia’s. Until developed nation’s governments and their commercially motivated corporate supporters can see arresting climate change as an opportunity, an effective agreement is very unlikely. It IS an opportunity but, as usually happens, the institutions that must meet it are comfortable with the status quo. The question is, will the world we know survive until those institutions too become uncomfortable enough to change direction?
January 11, 2011 at 8:20 am
azhou10
Thankyou for the interesting information and insight as to why Bolivia acted as it did and it appears to have acted rightly so, I fully support how Bolivia has acted and agree with their agreement instead of the Cancún Accord. What you might want to consider is holding the conference again but this time under the public eye as to gain more media attention putting pressure onto the UN to show that they are not entirely incompetent compared to the group effort of everyday people.
I thankyou again.
February 1, 2011 at 3:33 am
Peter D Carter MD
If there no mass movement rises up declaring we are in a most dire state of planetary emergency civilization will go down. The reason is that at already committed global warming and climate disruption global food security has gone. At 2C there are huge crop losses – even of some crops in the US.
Bolivia was superb at Cancun – but in the end the only voice for integrity.
The World Energy Outlooks by the International Energy, Exxon and Mobil have told the world even though we are past conventional oil that business as usual fueled by tar sands gas and coal will not let up. That means the end of civilization because its the end of agriculture.
We need to hold a virtual 2nd World Peoples Conference to globalize the excellent World Peoples Agreement. We must declare the dire planetary emergency for the survival of humanity and almost all life on Earth.
February 8, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Jim
I’ve been researching global warming for a couple of weeks, and so far I don’t agree that the science is clear. In fact it seems that human-caused CO2 emissions are probably having little or no effect, and the main effect seems to be the number of sun spots, which affect the amount of cosmic rays and thus cloud seeding. Water mediated by cosmic rays seems to be by far the most important factor, at least in the short term (ie over decades).
It looks as if the current global warming scare is intended to persecute undeveloped lands by preventing them from burning fossil fuels, while sneakily allowing such burning to forge on in the US.
Personally I think deforestation is one of the worst environmental catastrophies, and preventing fossil fuel use can only increase the use of trees for much-needed fuel in undeveloped countries.
June 10, 2011 at 8:59 am
jmmasson
Who pulls the strings attached to… the lack of collective response to a looming major threat?
Why is your stance not in the headlines of main stream media outlets?
Greed governs many nations. If only there were many countries such as yours to challenge conventional wisdom, which is utterly irrational sometimes!