FUERA LA BARRICK GOLD DEL PAÍS.

FUERA LA BARRICK GOLD DEL PAÍS.
No a la mega minería y el uso del cianuro, fuera la Barrick Gold del país.

viernes, 16 de octubre de 2015

Petroleras ya sabían daño del CO2 cuando financiaban a escépticos

[CONST.PUENTES] FWD: LA TRAGEDIA DE PARIS QUE SE AVECINA: UN ACUERDO CLIMÁTICO DESASTROSO QUE VERÁ ARDER AL PLANETA

   
Recibidos
x

Martin Vilela a través de googlegroups.com 

12:47 (hace 0 minutos)
 
para construyendopu.
 
 
 
 
    
Traducir mensaje
Desactivar para: inglés
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Pedro Guzmán <pguzper@gmail.com>
Date: 2015-10-08 11:55 GMT+02:00
Subject: La tragedia de Paris que se avecina: Un acuerdo climático desastroso que verá arder al planeta
To: pcfs-lac <pcfs-lac@googlegroups.com>


http://globalforestcoalition.org/es/the-coming-tragedy-of-paris-a-disastrous-climate-deal-that-will-see-the-planet-burn/

La tragedia de Paris que se avecina: Un acuerdo climático desastroso que verá arder al planeta

Por: Mary Louise Malig*
Traducción por: Isis Alvarez*

Como si se leyera una tragedia griega de Homero, estamos en las páginas en las que se puede ver el infierno que caerá sobre Troya. Estamos ahora en ese momento exacto viendo en el horizonte los incendios que quemarán por diez años. Sin embargo, no estamos viendo en el horizonte de los condenados Troyanos sino que estamos viendo el futuro de la humanidad, la naturaleza y el planeta.

Solamente quedan 5 días de negociaciones antes de la 21ª Conferencia de las Partes (COP21) del Convenio Marco de las Naciones Unidas en Cambio Climático (CMNUCC). Se supone que desde Octubre 19 al 23 de 2015, el CMNUCC deberá concretar las modalidades del acuerdo de Paris. En este momento, deberíamos tener una buena noción de lo que este acuerdo será. Después de todo, desde la COP17 en Durban, Sudáfrica en donde el mandato para elaborar un nuevo acuerdo climático hasta el 2030 fue adoptado, ya han pasado un total de 85 días de negociación, una buena cantidad de carbono acumulado gracias a los vuelos de las 193 partes a la convención, y en el borde del camino miles de muertos y desplazados debido a tifones, huracanes, inundaciones o sequías. Solamente en las Filipinas, el tifón más fuerte que jamás haya tocado la tierra, el Tifón Haiyan, mató 6000 personas y dejó miles sin hogar y sin medios de vida.

Sin embargo, en este punto, no existe un texto que se haya acordado para el tratado de Paris y en cambio, existen varios documentos. Primero hay una ‘Herramienta del Co-presidente’ (1) que dibuja un posible escenario. Durante la última sesión inter-sesional en Bonn en Septiembre, los co-presidentes del Grupo de Trabajo Especial sobre la Plataforma de Durban para Acción Reforzada (ADP, por sus siglas en Inglés) presentaron una herramienta para las negociaciones que tuene tres partes: La primera parte incluye una de las cuestiones que pueden ser incluidas en el potencial acuerdo de Paris; la segunda parte aquellas cuestiones que serán presentadas en una decisión y la tercera parte incluye aquellas cuestiones que necesitan mayor negociación y que no estarán en el acuerdo de la COP21 ni en ninguna decisión. En la herramienta de los co-presidentes, los elementos de una acuerdo en Paris son claros: cortes de emisiones que serán voluntarios, mecanismos de flexibilidad que continuarán, más mecanismos basados en el mercado que serán propuestos y brechas en la contabilidad de carbono y soluciones basadas en la tecnología que abundarán. Ya el término ‘cero emisiones netas’ da indicaciones sobre el truco de contabilidad ya que dicho término quiere decir que se han logrado nivelar las emisiones a través de la contabilidad. Entonces, ‘cero emisiones netas’ no se traduce a cero emisiones que es exactamente lo que el clima necesita urgentemente.

Esta semana, como lo indica el mandato, los co-presidentes del ADP, Ahmed Djoghlaf de Algeria y Daniel Reifsnyder los EEUU, además de la Herramienta de los Co-presidentes, han producido un documento no-oficial (2) justo a tiempo para la siguiente inter-sesional en Bonn. Sin duda, existe un elemento de la tragedia griega en el hecho que uno de los co-presidentes proviene de uno de los países con mayores emisiones y, que como ironía, nunca ratificó el último protocolo climático. El documento no-oficial de Octubre 5 de 2015, brinda detalles de un borrador del acuerdo y un borrador de la decisión de Paris. Los presidentes también han presentado una decisión preliminar sobre la corriente de trabajo 2 o la ambición previa al 2020 (3). Todos estos documentos aún se encuentran bajo negociación.

Otra razón fundamental de por qué sabemos que Paris será un acuerdo que quemará al planeta es que, en el momento de escribir este artículo, después de la fecha límite de Octubre 1º que da la CMNUCC, se han presentado 119 Contribuciones Previstas y Determinadas a Nivel Nacional (INDCs por sus siglas en Inglés).

Esto incluye a los 28 estados miembro de la UE como 1. Todos los principales emisores se encuentran en estas 119 presentaciones. Estos INDCs son compromisos voluntarios por parte de los países sobre cuántas emisiones pretenden reducir hasta el 2030. (4) Un ejemplar del Centro Internacional para el Comercio y Desarrollo Sostenible que reporta sobre estas presentaciones dice al respecto que, “aunque algunas estimaciones  sostienen que las acciones descritas hasta ahora resultarán en un calentamiento global de tres grados centígrados por encima de aquellos niveles pre-industriales, rebasando el acuerdo internacional por un grado.”(5) Sin embargo, un estudio reciente por Stern et.al, detalla que los compromisos de reducción por parte de los EEUU, La UE y China – quienes en conjunto son responsables del 45 por ciento de las emisiones mundiales, no lograrán el objetivo del 2030 de 35 gigatoneladas. de emisiones de CO2 casi por el doble. (6) Las emisiones deberían ser reducidas en 2030 a 35 gigatoneladas de CO2 y con los actuales INDCs de los países mas importantes las emisiones anuales mundiales serán de alrededor de 60 gigatoneladas en 2030.

COMO EN LA ILIADA, TROYA ARDERÁ

Esta meta de 2 grados se acordó a nivel internacional en el 2007, después de que el Grupo Intergubernamental de Expertos sobre el Cambio Climático (IPCC) publicó su Cuarto Informe de Evaluación (7), que detalló que para evitar interferencias antropogénicas peligrosas en el sistema climático, las emisiones tendrían que mantenerse por debajo de 2 grados para el año 2020. Ahora es el 2015, y el Quinto Informe de Evaluación del IPCC ha reiterado dicho peligro e incluso ha destacado que “Muchos aspectos del cambio climático y los impactos asociados continuarán durante siglos, incluso si las emisiones antropogénicas de gases de efecto invernadero se detienen. Los riesgos de cambios abruptos o irreversibles aumentan a medida que la magnitud del calentamiento aumenta.”(8) Esto significa que cuanto mayor sea el retraso en la reducción de emisiones, mayor es el peligro de que el mecanismo de retroalimentación del sistema climático sobrepase los 2 grados centígrados como “límite de seguridad”.

Este es el corazón del problema del acuerdo de París. Los objetivos de emisiones de los países no son objeto de negociación. Son promesas voluntarias que pueden o no pueden poner en práctica e incluso pueden utilizar mecanismos de mercado para engañar y salir del paso. Las emisiones se deben cortar profundamente, en su origen, sin brechas o mecanismos de mercado, hoy y no dentro de 10 años. La década perdida en espera para reducir para el año 2030, será una década perdida para siempre. El sistema climático no funciona como en las películas – donde el calentamiento se detiene en el momento en que el protagonista triunfa – las emisiones que se ponen en el sistema ahora continuarán quemándose mucho más allá de 2030. Puede que no haya un planeta para “salvar” el año 2030.

La captura del proceso completo por parte de las corporaciones, especialmente por parte de la industria de combustibles fósiles y la extractiva – la principal fuente de emisiones – es más evidente en el apoyo de los negocios como de costumbre. En la totalidad de las 88 páginas de la herramienta del Co-presidente, “combustible fósil” sólo se menciona una vez y sólo para alentar a los gobiernos a reducir o eliminar los incentivos para subsidios a los combustibles fósiles: “52 a. [Se alienta a las Partes] a [tomar medidas para] [reducir] [eliminar] [apoyo internacional] [incentivos públicos] [para] [eliminar] inversiones altas en carbono [, [incluyendo] [y] los subsidios internacionales de los combustibles fósiles] ;] {párrafos 102, 103 y 113 bis d. SCT} “(9)

En la declaración del Espacio Climático, se reitera la exigencia de los movimientos sociales para que el 80 por ciento de las reservas de combustibles fósiles queden bajo tierra con el fin de mantenerse por debajo del límite de 2 grados. (10) ¿Y cómo se cumplirá esta exigencia si los patrocinadores de la COP21 son de corporaciones de combustibles fósiles y grandes emisores de carbono como EDF, Engie, Air France, Renault-Nissan y BNP Paribas? (11)

EL CABALLO DE TROYA DE LA CONTABILIDAD DE CARBONO Y LA AGRICULTURA CLIMATICAMENTE INTELIGENTE

Además de no hacer frente a las principales fuentes de emisiones, el acuerdo sobre el clima, desde la aprobación del Protocolo de Kioto, ha permitido el uso de mecanismos de mercado. La creación de este mercado de carbono ha llevado al engaño masivo por partede los países del Anexo 1 (37 países industrializados), escapando de su compromiso legal para reducir las emisiones en al menos un 5 por ciento por debajo de los niveles de 1990 en el período de compromiso 2008-2012. El mecanismo de flexibilidad del Protocolo de Kioto permitió a estos países del Anexo 1 “compensar” sus emisiones al hacer proyectos de “desarrollo limpio” en países en desarrollo o al comprar y vender sus bonos de carbono.

El esquema de Reducción de Emisiones por Deforestación y Degradación de los Bosques+ (REDD +), cuyas reglas finales se supone deberán ser adoptadas formalmente en París, agrega significativamente a este engaño al permitir a los países presentar cualquier tipo de plantación o protección de árboles como contribución a la mitigación, incluso cuando dichas actividades no son adicionales o permanentes, o cuando desencadenan deforestación en otras áreas o países, o que son ambientalmente o socialmente perjudiciales. Éste esquema permite a los países a mercantilizar o incluso vender sus bosques como sumideros de carbono, e ignora las verdaderas causas de la pérdida de bosques pero sí culpa a los pueblos indígenas y los pequeños agricultores de la deforestación. Tal como la Red NO-REDD en África ha dicho, “Los informes indican que la deforestación y las emisiones relacionadas continúan y que REDD +, en lugar de reducirlas, está dañando y vilipendiando a las comunidades dependientes de los bosques y a quienes producen la mayor parte de los alimentos del mundo – los pequeños agricultores “. (12)

La creencia en los mercados de carbono como panacea se extiende al acuerdo de París propuesto, con propuestas sobre la inclusión del uso de la tierra con las emisiones relacionadas y la reducción de emisiones. Ya existe de por sí una brecha en la contabilidad defectuosa que se propone, y junto con los mecanismos de mercado, creará una nueva apropiación de la totalidad de la tierra ya que crea un REDD+ para la agricultura y los suelos.

En primer lugar, la no permanencia de la tierra hace que sea un sumidero de carbono mucho más teórico para emisiones en comparación a la muy real quema continua de combustibles fósiles. Más importante aún, la lógica de la contabilidad del carbono que determina a la política agrícola significa que la agricultura dará prioridad a las necesidades del mercado de carbono en lugar de alimentar a la gente y el de la soberanía alimentaria.

El Banco Mundial y otras empresas transnacionales (ETN) en la Alianza Global para la Agricultura Climáticamente Inteligente están presionando por este tipo de agricultura – un sistema que produce más alimentos en menos tierra y al mismo tiempo siendo resistente al clima y absorbiendo carbono. La producción de más alimentos en menos tierra está claramente apoyado por las corporaciones que promueven el uso de semillas transgénicas. Pero es la creación de un nuevo mercado para los suelos y la agricultura lo que representa el mayor atractivo para las empresas transnacionales. Así como el incentivo monetario de REDD+ ha desplazado Pueblos Indígenas, las potenciales ganancias financieras desplazarán a los pequeños agricultores y añadirá más a la apropiación de tierras ya existente. Como afirma la Vía Campesina, el movimiento más grande del mundo de pequeños agricultores, “la agricultura climáticamente inteligente dará lugar a una mayor concentración de la tierra empujando a los campesinos y agricultores familiares hacia los proyectos del Banco Mundial, la Organización para la Agricultura y la Alimentación (FAO) y otras instituciones, lo que crea dependencia sobre las llamada nuevas tecnologías a través de sus paquetes completos que incluyen recetas de “variedades climáticamente inteligentes”, insumos y crédito, sin tener en cuenta las técnicas de cultivo tradicionales probadas y de verdadera adaptación así como la custodia de variedades de semillas practicada por  los pequeños agricultores”. (13) LVC continúa, “La posibilidad de grandes ganancias con inversiones en créditos de carbono generados por las tierras de cultivo que participan en proyectos de agricultura climáticamente inteligente aumentará la especulación en el mercado de carbono, lo que lleva a una mayor “apropiación de tierras a causa del carbono” por parte de inversores y productores a gran escala, y el ulterior desplazamiento de campesinos y pequeños agricultores, al igual que REDD desplaza indígenas. Bajo este marco de agricultura climáticamente inteligente, hay poca esperanza de reducir y eliminar los gases de invernadero, de tratar de resolver la inseguridad alimentaria o cualquier desarrollo rural significativo económico y social. “(14)

CAMBIA LA HISTORIA, CAMBIA EL SISTEMA

Esta historia no tiene por qué terminar en tragedia. De hecho, está siendo desafiada valientemente todos los días con todas las luchas diarias que se llevan a cabo por parte de las comunidades, pueblos indígenas, pequeños agricultores, mujeres, trabajadores, estudiantes, activistas y héroes y heroínas de la Madre Naturaleza que se encuentran a la vanguardia. El futuro tiene que ser recuperado, el sistema cambió y las alternativas de la gente han de salir adelante.

Las propuestas en borrador del Presidente para el acuerdo de París: el acuerdo y la decisión – necesitan ser rechazadas tajantemente. El verdadero peligro de un mal acuerdo es el hecho de que nos sumergirá en un acuerdo permanente de ‘negocios como de costumbre’ en donde se quema el planeta. La fuerte promoción respecto al acuerdo de París que se necesita desesperadamente para “salvar al mundo” es alarmismo que pone a las personas en una situación en la que pueda que acepten un muy mal negocio. Con reminiscencias de los días que se hacía campaña en contra del Programa de Doha para el Desarrollo de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC), el llamado a ningún acuerdo es mejor que un mal acuerdo suena sensato. Que no haya trato en París es mejor que haya un mal y falso acuerdo en París – precisamente porque al igual que el Programa de Doha para el Desarrollo de la OMC somete al mundo a reglas de comercio sobre alimentación y agricultura injustas; será que un falso Acuerdo Climático en París bloquear el mundo en un régimen de ‘laissez faire’ de contaminación como de costumbre, países haciendo cortes cuando les de la gana, manipulación de brechas en la contabilidad para engañar sobre reducción de emisiones, y el uso y la creación de aún más mecanismos de mercado para mercantilizar, financiarizar y sacar provecho de los restantes recursos del planeta. Si vamos a hacer de París un recurso para salvar el planeta, entonces debería ser acerca de rechazar el falso acuerdo que está sobre la mesa.

La Convención del Clima original que fue adoptada en 1992 y ratificada por casi todos los países del mundo, incluyendo los EE.UU. y otros grandes contaminadores, es un acuerdo bastante genérico, pero importante puesto que obliga a los países a evitar el peligroso cambio climático y se basa firmemente en el Principio de Responsabilidades Comunes pero Diferenciadas. Desde que el Protocolo de Kyoto se estableció y presentó un régimen de límite y comercio (cap and trade) basado en mecanismos de contabilidad y flexibilidad cuantificados, las negociaciones sobre el clima no han llegado a ninguna parte, al contrario. Compromisos jurídicamente vinculantes se han convertido en promesas voluntarias, y luego en contribuciones previstas y determinadas a nivel nacional. Las Responsabilidades Comunes pero Diferenciadas se han convertido en un régimen vago aplicable a todas las partes, sin tener en cuenta tanto la responsabilidad histórica y la responsabilidad de los países del Anexo 1 y el hecho de que los que han hecho el menor daño son menos responsables. A la exigencia de larga data respecto a la indemnización por pérdida y daño solo ha sido palabrería con el reconocimiento de los impactos del cambio climático.

Un escenario no hay acuerdo de París en diciembre no es un desastre – es una oportunidad. Creará el espacio para la recuperación de los objetivos originales de la convención sobre el clima para detener el peligroso cambio climático mediante el sometimiento a la rendición de cuentas a los contaminadores. También crearía el espacio para las soluciones comunitarias algunas de las cuales ya se encuentran en práctica y están enfriando el planeta – desde la agroecología campesina y las soluciones de energía sostenible y la conservación comunitaria de bosques. Permitiría propuestas alternativas tales como las políticas y medidas integrales que no se centran en la contabilidad del carbono y los mercados. Dará espacio a medidas transformadoras que deben aplicarse para lograr los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible recientemente adoptados incluyendo la meta de deforestación cero al 2020. Hay muchas más alternativas y propuestas a las que se les pueden dar espacio – los derechos de la naturaleza, los empleos climáticos, el “buen vivir”, la soberanía alimentaria, el decrecimiento, la desglobalización, y muchos más.

Un mundo sin un acuerdo climático en Paris no solo es posible sino necesario si es que queremos evitar la tragedia. No existen límites a las alternativas.

*Mary Louise Malig, investigadora y analista en comercio, es la coordinadora de campañas de la Coalición Mundial por los Bosques ( Global Forest Coalition).
*Isis Alvarez Asesora en temas de género y campaña de bioenergía

ENDNOTES

(1) http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/adp2/eng/4infnot.pdf
(2) http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/adp2/eng/8infnot.pdf
(3) http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/adp2/eng/9infnot.pdf
(4) http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx
(5) http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/un-members-adopt-post-2015-development-agenda-prepare-climate-talks
(6)http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Boyd_et_al_policy_paper_May_2015.pdf
(7) https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm
(8) https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
(9) http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/adp2/eng/4infnot.pdf
(10) https://climatespace2013.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/fight-for-system-change-now-why-we-need-to-build-alternatives-and-dismantle-a-process-that-will-lock-us-into-another-decade-of-burning-the-planet/
(11) http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/29/paris-climate-summit-sponsors-include-fossil-fuel-firms-and-big-carbon-emitters
(12) http://www.no-redd-africa.org/index.php/declarations/147-durban-declaration-on-redd
(13) http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/main-issues-mainmenu-27/sustainable-peasants-agriculture-mainmenu-42/1670-un-masking-climate-smart-agriculture
(14) ibid


--
Mary Louise Malig
Campaigns Coordinator and Research Associate
Global Forest Coalition
www.globalforestcoalition.org

The Global Forest Coalition (GFC) is an international coalition of NGOs and Indigenous Peoples’ Organisations defending social justice and the rights of forest peoples in forest policies


> On Oct 5, 2015, at 7:21 PM, Mary Louise Malig <marylouisemalig@globalforestcoalition.org> wrote:
>
http://globalforestcoalition.org/the-coming-tragedy-of-paris-a-disastrous-climate-deal-that-will-see-the-planet-burn/
>
> The coming tragedy of Paris: A disastrous climate deal that will see the planet burn
>
> By: Mary Louise Malig*
>
> Like reading the ancient Greek tragedy of Homer, we are at the pages of the Iliad where we can see what hell ahead shall befall Troy. We are now in that exact moment, seeing in the horizon the fires that will burn for ten years. However, we are not looking in the horizon of the ill-fated Trojans, but rather, we are looking at the future of humanity, nature and the planet.
>
> There are only 5 negotiating days left before the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). From October 19-23, 2015, the UNFCCC is supposed to hammer out the modalities of the Paris deal. At this point, we should have a good sense of what the Paris deal will be. After all, since the COP17 in Durban, South Africa, where the mandate to draft a new climate agreement until 2030 was adopted, there have already been a total of 85 negotiating days, a carbon filled amount of flights for 193 parties to the convention, and at the wayside thousands of dead and displaced from destructively intense typhoons, hurricanes, floods or droughts. In the Philippines alone, the strongest typhoon to ever make landfall, Typhoon Haiyan, killed 6,000 and left thousands more homeless and without livelihood.
>
> However, at this point, there is no agreed text yet for a Paris deal. Instead, there are a number of documents. First you have a “Co-Chairs Tool”(1) that lays out the possible scenario. At the last intersessional in Bonn in September, the co-chairs of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) presented a tool for the negotiations that has three parts: The first part includes the issues that can be included in a potential Paris agreement, the second part those issues that will be listed in a decision and the third part includes those issues that need further negotiation and will neither be in the COP21 agreement nor decision. In the Co-Chairs tool, the elements of a Paris deal are clear: emission cuts will be voluntary, flexibility mechanisms will be continued, more market mechanisms will be proposed and accounting loopholes and techno-fixes will abound. Already, the term “net zero” emissions indicates an accounting trick because “net zero” is a term to mean you’ve balanced your accounting columns out. “Net zero” emissions therefore does not translate to zero emissions, which is what the climate urgently needs.
>
> This week, the co-chairs of the ADP, Ahmed Djoghlaf of Algeria and Daniel Reifsnyder of the US, as mandated have produced, in addition to the Co-Chair’s Tool, a non-paper note by the Co-Chairs (2) in time for the coming intersessional in Bonn. There is certainly an element of Greek tragedy in the fact that one of the co-chairs is from one of the biggest emitters and the one who, as a matter of irony, never ratified the last climate protocol. The October 5, 2015 non-paper details a draft agreement and a draft decision for Paris. The Chairs have also issued a draft decision on workstream 2 or the pre-2020 ambition. (3) All these documents are still under negotiation.
>
> Another critical reason as to why we know that Paris is going to be a deal that burns the planet, is that, as of writing, following the October 1 deadline of the UNFCCC, 119 submissions of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) have been made. This includes the 28 member states of the EU as 1. All major emitters are in these 119 submissions. These INDCs are the voluntary pledges of the countries on how much emissions they are targeting to reduce by 2030. (4) An issue of the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development reporting on these submissions states, “although some estimates contend that the actions outlined thus far would result in a planetary warming of three degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, overshooting an international commitment by one degree.”(5) A recent study however by Stern etal, details that the reduction pledges from US, EU and China – who together account for 45 percent of global emissions will miss by almost double the 2030 target of 35 gigatons of CO2e emissions.(6) Emissions should be cut by 2030 to 35 gigatons of CO2e and with the current INDCs of the most important countries annual global emissions will be around 60 gigatons of CO2e in 2030.
>
> AS IN THE ILIAD, TROY WILL BURN
>
> This 2 degree target was internationally agreed on in 2007, after the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Fourth Assessment Report (7) which detailed that to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, that emissions had to be kept to below 2 degrees by 2020. It is now 2015, and the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report has come out to reiterate that danger and has even highlighted that “Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped. The risks of abrupt or irreversible changes increase as the magnitude of the warming increases.” (8) This means that the longer the delay in reducing emissions, the higher the danger that the feedback mechanism of the climate system will go beyond the 2 degree “safe” limit.
>
> This is the heart of the problem of the Paris deal. The emission targets of the countries are not under negotiation. They are voluntary promises that they may or may not implement and may even use market mechanisms to cheat their way out of. Emissions need to be cut deeply, at source, without loopholes or market mechanisms, today, not 10 years from now. The decade lost waiting to reduce by 2030, will be a decade lost forever. The climate system does not work like the movies – where warming stops the moment the protagonist saves the day – the emissions put into the system now will burn well beyond 2030. There may not be a planet to “save” by 2030.
>
> The whole process being captured by corporations especially by the fossil fuel and extractive industry – the main source of emissions – is most evident in the support of business as usual. In the entire 88 pages of the Co-Chair’s Tool, “fossil fuel” is only mentioned once and only to encourage governments to reduce or eliminate incentives for fossil fuel subsidies: “52 a. [Parties [are encouraged] to [take steps to] [reduce][eliminate] [international support][public incentives] [for][phase down] high-carbon investments[, [including][and] international fossil fuel subsidies];] {paras 102, 103 and 113 bis d. SCT}” (9)
>
> In the statement of the Climate Space, it reiterates the demand of social movements for 80 percent of the fossil fuel reserves to be left underground in order to stay below the 2 degree limit. (10) And how will this demand be met if the sponsors of the COP21 are from fossil fuel and large carbon emitting corporations such as EDF, Engie, Air France, Renault-Nissan and BNP Paribas? (11)
>
> THE TROJAN HORSE OF CARBON ACCOUNTING & CLIMATE SMART AGRICULTURE
>
> In addition to not addressing the main sources of emissions, the climate agreement, since the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, has allowed the use of market mechanisms. The creation of this carbon market has led to the massive cheating by Annex 1 countries (37 industrialized countries), escaping their legal commitment to cut emissions by at least 5 percent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008-2012. The Kyoto Protocol flexibility mechanism allowed Annex 1 countries to “offset” their emissions by doing “clean development” projects in developing countries or by buying and selling their carbon credits.
>
> The Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation plus (REDD+) scheme, the final rules of which are supposed to be formally adopted in Paris, adds significantly to this cheating by allowing countries to present any kind of tree planting or protection as a contribution to mitigation, even when such activities are not additional or permanent, or when they trigger deforestation in other areas or countries or are otherwise environmentally or socially damaging. It allows countries to commodify or even sell their forests as carbon sinks, ignores the real drivers of forest loss, but blames indigenous peoples and small farmers for deforestation instead. As the NO-REDD in Africa Network has stated, “Reports show that deforestation and the related emissions continue, and that REDD+, instead of reducing them, is harming and vilifying forest-dependent communities and those who produce the majority of the world’s food – small scale farmers.” (12)
>
> The belief in carbon markets as panacea extends to the proposed Paris agreement, with proposals on the inclusion of land use related emissions and emission reductions. Already a loophole by itself in the flawed accounting approaches it proposes, combined with market mechanisms, will create an entire new grab for land as it creates a REDD+ for agriculture and soils.
>
> The impermanence of land in the first place, makes it a far more theoretical carbon sink for emissions compared to the very real continued burning of fossil fuels. More importantly, the logic of carbon accounting determining agricultural policy means that agriculture will prioritize the needs of the carbon market rather than feeding people and that of food sovereignty.
>
> The World Bank and other transnational corporations (TNCs) in the Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture are pushing for this Climate Smart Agriculture – a system that produces more food on less land, while being weather resistant and absorbing carbon. The production of more food on less land is clearly supported by corporations pushing the use of GM seeds. But it is the creation of a new market for soils and agriculture that poses the greatest attraction to TNCs. Just how the monetary incentive of REDD+ displaced Indigenous Peoples, the potential financial gains will displace small farmers and add further to the already existing land grab. As La Via Campesina, the world’s largest movement of small farmers states, “Climate smart agriculture will lead to further consolidation of land, pushing peasant and family farmers towards World Bank Projects, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and other institutions, creating dependency on so-called new technologies through their complete packages that include prescriptions of “climate smart varieties”, inputs, and credit, while ignoring traditional tried and true adaptive farming techniques and stewardship of seed varieties in practice by farmers.” (13) It continues, “The possibility of big profits with investments in carbon credits generated from farmlands involved in climate smart agriculture projects will increase speculation in the carbon market, leading to further “carbon land grabs” by large-scale investors and producers, and the further displacement of peasant and smallholder farmers, just as REDD displaces indigenous people. Under this climate smart agriculture framework, there is little hope of reducing and removing greenhouse gases, trying to solve food insecurity or any significant rural economic and social development.” (14)
>
> CHANGE THE STORY, CHANGE THE SYSTEM
>
> This story does not need to end in tragedy. In fact, it is being challenged valiantly, everyday, with all the daily struggles being carried out by frontline communities, Indigenous Peoples, small farmers, women, workers, students, activists and heroes and heroines of Mother Nature. The future needs to be reclaimed, the system changed and peoples alternatives be pushed forward.
>
> The draft Chairman proposals for the Paris deal: the agreement and the decision – need to be squarely rejected. The real danger of a bad deal is the fact that it will lock us into a permanent agreement of business as usual of burning the planet. The extreme hype around the Paris deal being desperately needed to “save the world” is scaremongering people into accepting a disastrously bad deal. Reminiscent of the days campaigning against the World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Development Agenda, the call for no deal is better than a bad deal, rings true. No Paris deal is better than a bad and false Paris deal – exactly because just like the WTO Doha Development Agenda has locked the world into unfair trade rules on food and agriculture; will a false Paris Climate Agreement lock the world into a laissez faire regime of polluting as always, countries making cuts when they feel like it, manipulating accounting loopholes to cheat their way out of emissions cuts, and using and creating even more market mechanisms to commodify, financialize and profit from the remaining resources of the planet. If we are to make Paris about saving the planet, then it should be about rejecting the false deal that is on the table.
>
> The original Climate Convention that was adopted in 1992 and ratified by practically every country in the world, including the US and other big polluters, is a rather generic but important agreement. It obliges countries to prevent dangerous climate change and is firmly based on the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities. Ever since the Kyoto Protocol was established and introduced a cap and trade regime based on quantified accounting and flexibility mechanisms, the climate negotiations have moved nowhere but backwards. Legally binding commitments have turned into voluntary pledges, and then into intended nationally determined contributions. Common but differentiated responsibility has turned into a vague regime applicable to all parties, disregarding both historical accountability and responsibility of Annex 1 countries and the fact that those who have done the least are least responsible. The long-standing demand of real compensation for loss and damage has just been paid lip service with the acknowledgement of the impacts of climate change.
>
> A no Paris deal scenario in December is not a disaster – it is an opportunity. It will create the space for a recuperation to the original goals of the climate convention to halt dangerous climate change by holding polluters to account. It would also create the space for community-driven solutions some of which are already in practice and are cooling the planet – from peasant agroecology and community-based sustainable energy solutions to community forest conservation. It would allow for alternative proposals such as holistic policies and measures that are not centered on carbon accounting and markets. It will give space for transformative measures to be implemented to accomplish the recently adopted Sustainable Development Goals including the historical zero deforestation by 2020 target. There are many more alternatives and proposals that can be given space for – rights of nature, climate jobs, “buen vivir”, food sovereignty, degrowth, deglobalization, and many more.
>
> A world without a Paris deal is not only possible, it is necessary if we are to avoid tragedy. There are no limits to the alternatives.
>
> *Mary Louise Malig, a researcher and trade analyst, is Campaigns Coordinator of the Global Forest Coalition.
>
>
>
> ENDNOTES
>
> (1) http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/adp2/eng/4infnot.pdf
> (2) http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/adp2/eng/8infnot.pdf
> (3) http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/adp2/eng/9infnot.pdf
> (4) http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx
> (5) http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/un-members-adopt-post-2015-development-agenda-prepare-climate-talks
> (6)http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Boyd_et_al_policy_paper_May_2015.pdf
> (7) https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm
> (8) https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
> (9) http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/adp2/eng/4infnot.pdf
> (10) https://climatespace2013.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/fight-for-system-change-now-why-we-need-to-build-alternatives-and-dismantle-a-process-that-will-lock-us-into-another-decade-of-burning-the-planet/
> (11) http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/29/paris-climate-summit-sponsors-include-fossil-fuel-firms-and-big-carbon-emitters
> (12) http://www.no-redd-africa.org/index.php/declarations/147-durban-declaration-on-redd
> (13) http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/main-issues-mainmenu-27/sustainable-peasants-agriculture-mainmenu-42/1670-un-masking-climate-smart-agriculture
> (14) ibid
>
> --
> Mary Louise Malig
> Campaigns Coordinator and Research Associate
> Global Forest Coalition
www.globalforestcoalition.org
>
> The Global Forest Coalition (GFC) is an international coalition of NGOs and Indigenous Peoples’ Organisations defending social justice and the rights of forest peoples in forest policies

--
Mary Louise Malig
Campaigns Coordinator and Research Associate
Global Forest Coalition
www.globalforestcoalition.org

The Global Forest Coalition (GFC) is an international coalition of NGOs and Indigenous Peoples’ Organisations defending social justice and the rights of forest peoples in forest policies


> On Oct 5, 2015, at 7:16 PM, Mary Louise Malig <marylouisemalig@globalforestcoalition.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Climate Space facilitators,
>
> Sharing our analysis of the coming Paris deal.
>
> best regards,
> Mary Lou
>
>
http://globalforestcoalition.org/the-coming-tragedy-of-paris-a-disastrous-climate-deal-that-will-see-the-planet-burn/
>
> The coming tragedy of Paris: A disastrous climate deal that will see the planet burn
>
> By: Mary Louise Malig*
>
> Like reading the ancient Greek tragedy of Homer, we are at the pages of the Iliad where we can see what hell ahead shall befall Troy. We are now in that exact moment, seeing in the horizon the fires that will burn for ten years. However, we are not looking in the horizon of the ill-fated Trojans, but rather, we are looking at the future of humanity, nature and the planet.
>
> There are only 5 negotiating days left before the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). From October 19-23, 2015, the UNFCCC is supposed to hammer out the modalities of the Paris deal. At this point, we should have a good sense of what the Paris deal will be. After all, since the COP17 in Durban, South Africa, where the mandate to draft a new climate agreement until 2030 was adopted, there have already been a total of 85 negotiating days, a carbon filled amount of flights for 193 parties to the convention, and at the wayside thousands of dead and displaced from destructively intense typhoons, hurricanes, floods or droughts. In the Philippines alone, the strongest typhoon to ever make landfall, Typhoon Haiyan, killed 6,000 and left thousands more homeless and without livelihood.
>
> However, at this point, there is no agreed text yet for a Paris deal. Instead, there are a number of documents. First you have a “Co-Chairs Tool”(1) that lays out the possible scenario. At the last intersessional in Bonn in September, the co-chairs of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) presented a tool for the negotiations that has three parts: The first part includes the issues that can be included in a potential Paris agreement, the second part those issues that will be listed in a decision and the third part includes those issues that need further negotiation and will neither be in the COP21 agreement nor decision. In the Co-Chairs tool, the elements of a Paris deal are clear: emission cuts will be voluntary, flexibility mechanisms will be continued, more market mechanisms will be proposed and accounting loopholes and techno-fixes will abound. Already, the term “net zero” emissions indicates an accounting trick because “net zero” is a term to mean you’ve balanced your accounting columns out. “Net zero” emissions therefore does not translate to zero emissions, which is what the climate urgently needs.
>
> This week, the co-chairs of the ADP, Ahmed Djoghlaf of Algeria and Daniel Reifsnyder of the US, as mandated have produced, in addition to the Co-Chair’s Tool, a non-paper note by the Co-Chairs (2) in time for the coming intersessional in Bonn. There is certainly an element of Greek tragedy in the fact that one of the co-chairs is from one of the biggest emitters and the one who, as a matter of irony, never ratified the last climate protocol. The October 5, 2015 non-paper details a draft agreement and a draft decision for Paris. The Chairs have also issued a draft decision on workstream 2 or the pre-2020 ambition. (3) All these documents are still under negotiation.
>
> Another critical reason as to why we know that Paris is going to be a deal that burns the planet, is that, as of writing, following the October 1 deadline of the UNFCCC, 119 submissions of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) have been made. This includes the 28 member states of the EU as 1. All major emitters are in these 119 submissions. These INDCs are the voluntary pledges of the countries on how much emissions they are targeting to reduce by 2030. (4) An issue of the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development reporting on these submissions states, “although some estimates contend that the actions outlined thus far would result in a planetary warming of three degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, overshooting an international commitment by one degree.”(5) A recent study however by Stern etal, details that the reduction pledges from US, EU and China – who together account for 45 percent of global emissions will miss by almost double the 2030 target of 35 gigatons of CO2e emissions.(6) Emissions should be cut by 2030 to 35 gigatons of CO2e and with the current INDCs of the most important countries annual global emissions will be around 60 gigatons of CO2e in 2030.
>
> AS IN THE ILIAD, TROY WILL BURN
>
> This 2 degree target was internationally agreed on in 2007, after the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Fourth Assessment Report (7) which detailed that to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, that emissions had to be kept to below 2 degrees by 2020. It is now 2015, and the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report has come out to reiterate that danger and has even highlighted that “Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped. The risks of abrupt or irreversible changes increase as the magnitude of the warming increases.” (8) This means that the longer the delay in reducing emissions, the higher the danger that the feedback mechanism of the climate system will go beyond the 2 degree “safe” limit.
>
> This is the heart of the problem of the Paris deal. The emission targets of the countries are not under negotiation. They are voluntary promises that they may or may not implement and may even use market mechanisms to cheat their way out of. Emissions need to be cut deeply, at source, without loopholes or market mechanisms, today, not 10 years from now. The decade lost waiting to reduce by 2030, will be a decade lost forever. The climate system does not work like the movies – where warming stops the moment the protagonist saves the day – the emissions put into the system now will burn well beyond 2030. There may not be a planet to “save” by 2030.
>
> The whole process being captured by corporations especially by the fossil fuel and extractive industry – the main source of emissions – is most evident in the support of business as usual. In the entire 88 pages of the Co-Chair’s Tool, “fossil fuel” is only mentioned once and only to encourage governments to reduce or eliminate incentives for fossil fuel subsidies: “52 a. [Parties [are encouraged] to [take steps to] [reduce][eliminate] [international support][public incentives] [for][phase down] high-carbon investments[, [including][and] international fossil fuel subsidies];] {paras 102, 103 and 113 bis d. SCT}” (9)
>
> In the statement of the Climate Space, it reiterates the demand of social movements for 80 percent of the fossil fuel reserves to be left underground in order to stay below the 2 degree limit. (10) And how will this demand be met if the sponsors of the COP21 are from fossil fuel and large carbon emitting corporations such as EDF, Engie, Air France, Renault-Nissan and BNP Paribas? (11)
>
> THE TROJAN HORSE OF CARBON ACCOUNTING & CLIMATE SMART AGRICULTURE
>
> In addition to not addressing the main sources of emissions, the climate agreement, since the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, has allowed the use of market mechanisms. The creation of this carbon market has led to the massive cheating by Annex 1 countries (37 industrialized countries), escaping their legal commitment to cut emissions by at least 5 percent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008-2012. The Kyoto Protocol flexibility mechanism allowed Annex 1 countries to “offset” their emissions by doing “clean development” projects in developing countries or by buying and selling their carbon credits.
>
> The Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation plus (REDD+) scheme, the final rules of which are supposed to be formally adopted in Paris, adds significantly to this cheating by allowing countries to present any kind of tree planting or protection as a contribution to mitigation, even when such activities are not additional or permanent, or when they trigger deforestation in other areas or countries or are otherwise environmentally or socially damaging. It allows countries to commodify or even sell their forests as carbon sinks, ignores the real drivers of forest loss, but blames indigenous peoples and small farmers for deforestation instead. As the NO-REDD in Africa Network has stated, “Reports show that deforestation and the related emissions continue, and that REDD+, instead of reducing them, is harming and vilifying forest-dependent communities and those who produce the majority of the world’s food – small scale farmers.” (12)
>
> The belief in carbon markets as panacea extends to the proposed Paris agreement, with proposals on the inclusion of land use related emissions and emission reductions. Already a loophole by itself in the flawed accounting approaches it proposes, combined with market mechanisms, will create an entire new grab for land as it creates a REDD+ for agriculture and soils.
>
> The impermanence of land in the first place, makes it a far more theoretical carbon sink for emissions compared to the very real continued burning of fossil fuels. More importantly, the logic of carbon accounting determining agricultural policy means that agriculture will prioritize the needs of the carbon market rather than feeding people and that of food sovereignty.
>
> The World Bank and other transnational corporations (TNCs) in the Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture are pushing for this Climate Smart Agriculture – a system that produces more food on less land, while being weather resistant and absorbing carbon. The production of more food on less land is clearly supported by corporations pushing the use of GM seeds. But it is the creation of a new market for soils and agriculture that poses the greatest attraction to TNCs. Just how the monetary incentive of REDD+ displaced Indigenous Peoples, the potential financial gains will displace small farmers and add further to the already existing land grab. As La Via Campesina, the world’s largest movement of small farmers states, “Climate smart agriculture will lead to further consolidation of land, pushing peasant and family farmers towards World Bank Projects, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and other institutions, creating dependency on so-called new technologies through their complete packages that include prescriptions of “climate smart varieties”, inputs, and credit, while ignoring traditional tried and true adaptive farming techniques and stewardship of seed varieties in practice by farmers.” (13) It continues, “The possibility of big profits with investments in carbon credits generated from farmlands involved in climate smart agriculture projects will increase speculation in the carbon market, leading to further “carbon land grabs” by large-scale investors and producers, and the further displacement of peasant and smallholder farmers, just as REDD displaces indigenous people. Under this climate smart agriculture framework, there is little hope of reducing and removing greenhouse gases, trying to solve food insecurity or any significant rural economic and social development.” (14)
>
> CHANGE THE STORY, CHANGE THE SYSTEM
>
> This story does not need to end in tragedy. In fact, it is being challenged valiantly, everyday, with all the daily struggles being carried out by frontline communities, Indigenous Peoples, small farmers, women, workers, students, activists and heroes and heroines of Mother Nature. The future needs to be reclaimed, the system changed and peoples alternatives be pushed forward.
>
> The draft Chairman proposals for the Paris deal: the agreement and the decision – need to be squarely rejected. The real danger of a bad deal is the fact that it will lock us into a permanent agreement of business as usual of burning the planet. The extreme hype around the Paris deal being desperately needed to “save the world” is scaremongering people into accepting a disastrously bad deal. Reminiscent of the days campaigning against the World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Development Agenda, the call for no deal is better than a bad deal, rings true. No Paris deal is better than a bad and false Paris deal – exactly because just like the WTO Doha Development Agenda has locked the world into unfair trade rules on food and agriculture; will a false Paris Climate Agreement lock the world into a laissez faire regime of polluting as always, countries making cuts when they feel like it, manipulating accounting loopholes to cheat their way out of emissions cuts, and using and creating even more market mechanisms to commodify, financialize and profit from the remaining resources of the planet. If we are to make Paris about saving the planet, then it should be about rejecting the false deal that is on the table.
>
> The original Climate Convention that was adopted in 1992 and ratified by practically every country in the world, including the US and other big polluters, is a rather generic but important agreement. It obliges countries to prevent dangerous climate change and is firmly based on the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities. Ever since the Kyoto Protocol was established and introduced a cap and trade regime based on quantified accounting and flexibility mechanisms, the climate negotiations have moved nowhere but backwards. Legally binding commitments have turned into voluntary pledges, and then into intended nationally determined contributions. Common but differentiated responsibility has turned into a vague regime applicable to all parties, disregarding both historical accountability and responsibility of Annex 1 countries and the fact that those who have done the least are least responsible. The long-standing demand of real compensation for loss and damage has just been paid lip service with the acknowledgement of the impacts of climate change.
>
> A no Paris deal scenario in December is not a disaster – it is an opportunity. It will create the space for a recuperation to the original goals of the climate convention to halt dangerous climate change by holding polluters to account. It would also create the space for community-driven solutions some of which are already in practice and are cooling the planet – from peasant agroecology and community-based sustainable energy solutions to community forest conservation. It would allow for alternative proposals such as holistic policies and measures that are not centered on carbon accounting and markets. It will give space for transformative measures to be implemented to accomplish the recently adopted Sustainable Development Goals including the historical zero deforestation by 2020 target. There are many more alternatives and proposals that can be given space for – rights of nature, climate jobs, “buen vivir”, food sovereignty, degrowth, deglobalization, and many more.
>
> A world without a Paris deal is not only possible, it is necessary if we are to avoid tragedy. There are no limits to the alternatives.
>
> *Mary Louise Malig, a researcher and trade analyst, is Campaigns Coordinator of the Global Forest Coalition.
>
>
>
> ENDNOTES
>
> (1) http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/adp2/eng/4infnot.pdf
> (2) http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/adp2/eng/8infnot.pdf
> (3) http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/adp2/eng/9infnot.pdf
> (4) http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx
> (5) http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/un-members-adopt-post-2015-development-agenda-prepare-climate-talks
> (6)http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Boyd_et_al_policy_paper_May_2015.pdf
> (7) https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm
> (8) https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
> (9) http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/adp2/eng/4infnot.pdf
> (10) https://climatespace2013.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/fight-for-system-change-now-why-we-need-to-build-alternatives-and-dismantle-a-process-that-will-lock-us-into-another-decade-of-burning-the-planet/
> (11) http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/29/paris-climate-summit-sponsors-include-fossil-fuel-firms-and-big-carbon-emitters
> (12) http://www.no-redd-africa.org/index.php/declarations/147-durban-declaration-on-redd
> (13) http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/main-issues-mainmenu-27/sustainable-peasants-agriculture-mainmenu-42/1670-un-masking-climate-smart-agriculture
> (14) ibid
>
> --
> Mary Louise Malig
> Campaigns Coordinator and Research Associate
> Global Forest Coalition
www.globalforestcoalition.org
>
> The Global Forest Coalition (GFC) is an international coalition of NGOs and Indigenous Peoples’ Organisations defending social justice and the rights of forest peoples in forest policies

JUEVES, 8 DE OCTUBRE DE 2015

¡Esto va a ser la bomba!

29 DE NOVIEMBRE -- ¡RESPUESTA LEGENDARIA!

     
Recibidos
x

Oli MacColl - Avaaz Anular suscripción

15:03 (hace 2 horas)
  
para 
  
Wow -- ¡nuestro mapa se ha cubierto de nuevos eventos de cara al 29 de noviembre! Haz clic para ver si ya hay un evento cerca de ti o, si no ves ninguno, puedes tomar la iniciativa y crear uno tú mismo/a.

-----

Queridos amigos y amigas:

Algo mágico está sucediendo… Estamos juntándonos por todo el mundo para salir a la calle el 29 de noviembre — ¡horas antes de la cumbre sobre el clima más importante de la década!

No te puedes perder este día de acciones mundiales — haz clic en el mapa para localizar un evento cerca de ti:



¡Esto va a ser la bomba! El año pasado, casi 700000 personas salieron a la calle, creando la movilización en torno al cambio climático más grande de la historia. ¡Este año vamos a hacer una marcha aún mayor!

Si somos cientos de miles los que nos unamos a los eventos que tendrán lugar en ciudades y pueblos de todo el mundo, demostraremos a los líderes que se reunen en París que no van a poder ignorar este movimiento y que no aceptaremos nada que no sea un acuerdo climático ambicioso que contenga un compromiso mundial con el uso de energías 100% limpias.

Haz clic en el enlace para apuntarte y localizar un evento cerca de ti:

https://secure.avaaz.org/es/event/globalclimatemarch?cl=8749747954&v=66097

Aprovechemos este momento, por nuestro futuro, el de nuestros hijos y por todo lo que amamos.

Con esperanza,

Oli, Alice, Morgan, Iain y todo el equipo de Avaaz

Más Información:

Exigen acuerdo serio para XXI Cumbre del Cambio Climático en diciembre (Semana)
http://www.semana.com/mundo/articulo/cumbre-sobre-el-cambio-climatico-en-paris/440022-3

Petroleras ya sabían daño del CO2 cuando financiaban a escépticos (IPS)
http://www.ipsnoticias.net/2015/07/petroleras-ya-sabian-dano-del-co2-cuando-financiaban-a-escepticos/

El mundo marcha por el clima (El País)
http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/09/22/album/1411377838_867207.html#1411377838_867207_1411377923

Marcha Ciudadana por el Clima: la revolución comienza aquí (artículo del fundador de Avaaz, Ricken Patel, en The Guardian --en inglés)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/29/peoples-climate-march-the-revolution-starts-here

No hay comentarios: