Who's Online

We have 1285 guests online

Popular

26147 readings
SUBMISSION TO THE CANCUN CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE PDF Print E-mail
Earth News
Posted by Joan Russow
Tuesday, 23 September 2014 08:52

November 17th, 2010

CLIMATE CHANGE CANCUN: TIME TO BE BOLD, NOVEMBER 2010
Joan Russow (PhD) Canada, ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it )

Global Compliance Research Project ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it )
Richard
Levicki (MSc) England
International Sustainable Development Network ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it )
www.isdnet.co

 


DEMANDING ACTION IN CANCUN AND LEGAL ACTION THEREAFTER SHOULD NO ADEQUATE AGREEMENT BE REACHED
Original: December 2007, expanded in 2009 into a Statement to COP 15 Copenhagen; Time to be Bold www.ClimateChangeCopenhagen.org-under construction, and submitted to state negotiators, formulated into a Global petition for COP 15, and with Cory Morningstar used to create a Post-COP 15 Declaration http://timetobebold.wordpress.com/which was submitted to the Peoples Conference in Cochabamba, Bolivia and revised and updated August 2010 for COP16 in Cancun
The time for procrastination about climate change has long since passed; the world is in a state of emergency and further inaction is gross or even criminal negligence.
At Cancun states must agree to base the COP16 on the UNFCCC and on credible emerging and current science and the precautionary principle and thus:
Because of the global urgency, there must be the political will to return earth’s temperature to its natural pre-industrial level, and strict time frames must be imposed to return the CO2 in the atmosphere to 278ppm by 2050.


KEY MESSAGE
DEMANDING ACTION IN CANCUN AND LEGAL ACTION THEREAFTER SHOULD NO ADEQUATE AGREEMENT BE REACHED

The time for procrastination about climate change has long since passed; the world is in a state of emergency and further inaction is gross or even criminal negligence.

At Cancun states must agree to base the COP16 on the UNFCCC and on credible emerging and current science and the precautionary principle and thus:

Targets and Timeframes
Because of the global urgency, there must be the political will to return earth’s temperature to its natural pre-industrial level, and strict time frames must be imposed, so that overall global emissions of greenhouse gases will begin to be reversed as of 2011. There must be a global target for greenhouse gas emission reductions of at least 30% below 1990 levels by 2015, at least 50% below 1990 levels by 2020, at least 75% below 1990 levels by 2030, at least 85% below 1990 levels by 2040 and 100% below 1990 emissions by 2050 (please see table 1 for detailed data calculations), while adhering to the precautionary principle, the differentiated responsibility principle *, and the fair and just transition principle. The required reductions in emissions cannot be achieved without an immediate end to the destruction of carbon sinks. Under the UNFCCC, every state signatory incurred the obligation to conserve carbon sinks; thus the destruction of sinks, including deforestation and elimination of bogs must end immediately.
The goal of COP 16 must be to return temperatures to pre-industrial levels and return atmospheric CO2 back to 278ppm at the latest by 2050.

To succeed in being below the dangerous 1°C, member states of the United Nations must commit to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. It is estimated that to remove the necessary CO2 from the atmosphere, member states of the United Nations would have to commit to removing over 1000GT CO2 by 2050. This must be done through socially equitable and environmentally safe and sound methods and the levels required calculated within an in depth research project. Greenhouse Gas emissions resulting from destructive land use practices including in the rural, the urban and peri-urban environment must end. In order to achieve the required emission reductions, deforestation and the destruction of carbon sinks must end immediately and developing nations whose development will be affected must be compensated.
The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of developing countries and of present and future generations.
The credible current emerging science has indicated that the global climate crisis is much more urgent than was conveyed in the 2007 IPCC Report that was based on data from the years 2004 and 2005. Current and emerging science must be taken into consideration in Cancun.

The emissions reduction required to avoid dangerous climate change and the small timeframes available to achieve this are so extreme that the methods used to achieve the required reductions must be based on the maximum achievable targets within the shortest timeframes as described in diagram 1.
Criminal Effects of Climate Change

The Global Humanitarian Forum Climate Change Human Impact report that summarised data including that issued by WHO on the impacts estimates that in 2009, 325 million people were seriously affected by climate change (based on negative health outcomes), and there were 303,000 deaths as a result of climate change. It predicts that in 2030, 660 million people a year will be affected by climate change and that 471,500 people will die from climate change. These factual estimates invoke very serious legal obligations for immediate action based on the current science. Action that will knowingly cause deaths which number over 10 million must be treated as crimes. Climate change could kill 250,000 children next year, and the figure could rise to more than 400,000 by 2030, according to a report by Save the Children, Feeling the Heat.
Please see diagram 1
Science

A paper published in Nature (no. 458) on the 30 April 2009 which is the up to date current science on climate change emission thresholds states that in order to have an 8-37% chance of not exceeding 2 Degrees you can only emit 886GT CO2 between 2000 and 2050. Between 2000 and 2010 363GT CO2 or 41% of the total budget has been emitted giving a high chance of exceeding 2 Degrees. Currently the temperature is at 0.78 Degrees above pre-industrial temperatures and possibly committed to at least 0.6 Degrees of further warming (Lenton et al). At 1.5 Degree Lenton et al suggest that forest dieback will emit an additional 100Gt of CO2, reducing the 886 GT limit to 776GT. In addition, at COP15, a scientist  at the IPCC press conference stated that at a 2 degree rise in temperature the poor, the vulnerable and the disenfranchised would not survive and at 1.5 degrees they night. Thus the Copenhagen Accord which put 2 degrees as the limit not only ignored the science but could be deemed to be criminally negligent. An important recent paper by Turney and Jones (Does the Agulhas Current amplify global temperatures during super-interglacials, Chris S.M. Turney, Richard T. Jones, Journal of Quaternary Science, Volume 25, Issue 6, September 2010) suggests that at 1.9 Degrees there is a high risk of a rise in sea levels of between 6.6 and 9.4 m and serious disturbance to regional ocean circulations that can amplify warming effects. Based on these facts it is clear that an agreement must be reached this year.

Legal Remedy
THAT in addition, major greenhouse gas-producing states must be forced to implement the actions that would discharge the obligations incurred when they signed and ratified the UNFCCC (provisions of the UNFCCC have become international peremptory norms and as such are binding) and other legal obligations and be forced to repay the emission debt. Historic emissions should be calculated and an assessment made of the degree of dereliction of duty in the implementation of the UNFCCC. From these assessments, provisions must be made to compensate the states that have been most damaged by the failure, of the major greenhouse gas emitting states, to discharge obligations under the Convention. In such cases, a fund should be set up to assist vulnerable states in taking delinquent states to the International Court of Justice, including the Chamber on Environmental Matters (http://www.icjcij.org/presscom/index.php?pr=106&p1=6&p2=1&search=%22%22Compositionof the Chamber for Environmental Matters

Funding
Industrialized states and major greenhouse gas producers must be prepared to enter into binding obligations not only through targets and time frames but also through funding mechanisms. This fund could be named Fund for the Implementation of the UNFCCC, and it would fund socially equitable and environmentally safe and sound energy renewable energy, transportation, agriculture and forestry. This fund would replace the GEF as the main source of funding for the UNFCCC. This international fund would take funds traditionally distributed not only through the GEF but also through the Bretton Woods institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and additional bilateral funds, and now be channelled through this global fund. This fund would be indispensable for preventing climate change, and for achieving the objectives of the UNFCCC. Additional funds must be derived from reallocation of global military expenses, including budgets and arms production; at the 1992 United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development, all member states of the United Nations agreed, in Chapter 33 of Agenda 21, to the reallocation of military expenses. Additionally budgetary sources for this Fund would be the redirecting of subsidies from socially inequitable and environmentally unsound non-sustainable energy. The financial deal must include the cancellation of the outstanding debt of developing states, and the implementation of the minimal long-standing commitment of 0.7% of GDP being transferred to Overseas Development (ODA). The 0.7% obligation for development must not be diverted to climate change; there must be an additional obligation of more than 7% of GDP specifically designated for addressing climate change prevention. Any shortfall in funding should be bolstered by increased ODA by nations that inequitably have gained an advantage from historical emissions or reduction scenarios that are not in line with the principle of equity.

These funding measures could only just begin to for the emissions debt owed, by the developed states to the developing states.

Militarism
The IPCC and COP have not separately calculated the impact of militarism on greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time the dangers related to climate change, and the potential security implications related to resource conflict, and militarism has to be addressed. There is a disturbing link between foreign refusal to supply fossil fuel for the consumption of developed states being deemed to violate “strategic national interest” of developed states and the possible result of military intervention.
Vested Interests and need for majority decision making at COP 16

The entrenched immovable national interests have served to block serious legally binding instruments in Cancun; must be prevented from blocking the adoption, in the General Assembly, of a strong legally binding agreement on climate change. Article 18 of the Charter of the United Nations reads: “Decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. These questions shall include recommendations with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security.” Undoubtedly, the impact of climate change could be deemed to fall under this category. In Cancun, given the urgency of the issue of climate change, and its potential effects on the global population and on the political, economic, ecological and social global systems, the requirement for consensus must be waived, and a binding agreement on all states will be deemed to exist, if 66 % of the states concur. It is possible that a majority of the member states could agree to a strong legally binding ‘Cancun protocol’ to the UNFCCC. A strong Protocol to the UNFCCC could then be used against the delinquent states, and a case could be taken to the International Court of Justice under the UNFCCC, which has been signed and ratified by 192 states. Even most of the delinquent states including Canada and the US, have signed and ratified the UNFCCC. If not 66%, then the proposal made by Papua New Guinea at COP 15 should be in place in Cancun; the proposal was that the state parties to the Convention should strive for consensus with a fall back on 75%. It should be noted that the UNFCCC was adopted by 150 of the then188 members of the United Nations (79%) and that under article 2 of the Montreal Protocol, Parties can if all efforts at consensus have been exhausted, and no agreement reached, adopt decisions by a two-thirds majority.


THAT All NGOS, including industry front group participating at the UN Conferences, including COP 16 in Cancun must reveal any sources of funding, such as that of corporate funding, or any board members that might jeopardise the willingness of the NGOS to take strong positions or that might seriously place the NGOs in conflict of interest

CSD
The Commission on Sustainable Development, in light of the failure in negotiations of CSD15 must now produce an appropriate outcome on climate change and other issues, be upgraded to a Council, which would be able to convene at any time to deal with new or emerging environmental threats. The General Assembly Resolution A/RES/47/191 states that the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) should ensure effective follow-up to Agenda 21, and other UNCED obligations and commitments that Includes the UNFCCC.
be reached this year.

OVERVIEW
At CANCUN STATES MUST AGREE TO BASE THE UNFCCC OBLIGATIONS ON SCIENCE AND ON PEREMPTORY NORMS FROM INTERNATIONAL LAW
The time for procrastination about climate change has long since passed; the world is in a state of emergency and further inaction is gross negligence or even criminal negligence.

Years of unheeded warnings
The time for procrastination about climate change has long since passed; the world is in a state of emergency and further inaction is gross if not criminal negligence. The actual and anticipated impacts of climate change as well as the unintended consequences of climate change, and the short-term and long-term effects that are known and yet to be known have all contributed to the state of emergency. Any denial of the state of emergency is eclipsed by the moral imperative and legal obligation to abide by the precautionary principle and ACT.

;While the threat of climate change has been obvious to most scientists for five decades, the industrialised world – the major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions – has refused to acknowledge, let alone address the urgency of the crisis. Industrialised nations have been heavily influenced by financial, media and industrial corporations, corporate front groups, industry-funded academics, and compromising NGOs as well as by citizens that deny the current science and quote pseudo science, all of which have tried to cast doubt on the reality of human-caused climate change.
It must be acknowledged that the major contribution to the causing and the exacerbating of climate change is waste and over-consumption; the root cause is corporate capitalism – a destructive model centred on individualism, accumulation of monetary wealth and corporate profits

Member states of the United Nations have been warned about climate change, and have been incurring obligations and making commitments related to climate change through a range of Conventions, Conference Action Plans and General Assembly Resolutions. These instruments form a central strand in both national and International peremptory norms; the time for procrastination has long since passed.
Solutions for the state of emergency depend upon the political will and on the discharging of the legal obligation to address climate change within the complexity and interdependence of issues related to: guaranteeing human rights, including the human right to food, to drinking water, to sanitation and to health; ensuring social justice; protecting and conserving the environment and ecosystems; reducing the ecological footprint and moving away from the current over-consumptive model of development; and preventing war and conflict, and to avowing the right to live and survive.

As far back as 1958, scientists began to acknowledge the potential threat of climate change. The threat was consistently ignored.

In 1988, however, scientists, politicians and members of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) met at the Changing Atmosphere Conference in Toronto to address the issue of climate change and warned that:

“Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequence could be second only to a global nuclear war. The earth’s atmosphere is being changed at an unprecedented rate by pollutants resulting from wasteful fossil fuel use … These changes represent a major threat to international security and are already having harmful consequences over many parts of the globe…. it is imperative to act now.”

In the Conference Statement from the 1988 Conference, the participants – scientists, government representatives, and industry and NGO organizations – called for:

“The stabilizing of the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is an imperative goal. Energy research and development budgets must be massively directed to energy options which would eliminate or greatly reduce CO2 emissions and to studies undertaken to further refine the target reductions.” It should be noted that this warning was issued when the parts per million were at a level at about 350ppm which was not deemed to be safe.

In view of this important and accurate statement made at this major international conference, the developed world cannot claim that it had never been warned.

In 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a report on the impacts of climate change; the Report estimated that in 2009, 325 million people were seriously affected by climate change (based on negative health outcomes), and there were 303,000 deaths as a result of climate change. It predicted that in 2030, 660 million people a year will be affected by climate change and that 471,500 people will die from climate change. These factual estimates invoke very serious legal obligations for immediate action based on the current and emerging science. According to a report by Save the Children, in Feeling the Heat:

“.Climate change could kill 250,000 children next year, and the figure could rise to more than 400,000 by 2030“
Actions or inactions which will knowingly cause deaths in numbers over 10 million must be treated as criminal negligence or crimes against humanity

By failing to agree to legally binding enforceable protocols and to thus enact effective legislation to discharge obligations under the UNFCCC the major greenhouse gas emitting states have reneged on their responsibility to address the urgency of the crisis facing the global community.  States have also failed to even consider

(i) the resources required for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and for the conservation of carbon sinks or (ii) the funds needed to protect the poor and most vulnerable from the current and future impacts of climate change. Developed States claim that they must rely on market-based solutions because there will not be sufficient funds to assist the developing states. This claim can be discounted by the fact that these states offer only $30 billion for climate change solutions while spending over $1.5 trillion dollars annually on militarism. It is a question of priorities. In addition, developed states have failed to consider the need to assist low-lying states and Small Island developing states that have already been impacted by climate change, and to compensate the global displacement of people resulting from climate change.

If, in Cancun, States exhibit dereliction of duty: (i) in continuing to fail to discharge their legal obligations under the UNFCCC (ii) in reneging act on their responsibility under the transboundary principle. (iii) in not agreeing on a legally binding Cancun Protocol with bold targets and high percentage greenhouse gas reductions, these states must be compelled to act under existing or new international legal organs. And if they continue to flaunt their legal obligations under a strong legally binding Cancun Protocol, these states must also be compelled to act under existing or new international legal organs.

Failing to institute mandatory emissions reductions and time lines and targets to discharge obligations under the UNFCCC
Refusing to agree to emissions reductions and time lines
Under Article 2 of the UNFCCC, states incurred the following obligation:

”stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere must be at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
In 1992, This obligation clearly affirmed the urgency of addressing climate change
Because of the global urgency, and legal obligations there must be the political will to achieve the following objectives;
To return the earth’s temperature to its natural state, that equates to 0 °C above pre-industrial levels and to return the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere to 278 ppm.
To impose strict time frames so that overall global emissions will begin to be reversed as of 2010. There must be a global target for greenhouse gas emission reductions of at least 30% below 1990 levels by 2015, at least 50% below 1990 levels by 2020, at least 75% below 1990 levels by 2030, at least 85% below 1990 levels by 2040 and 100% below 1990 emissions by 2050 (please see table 1 for detailed data calculations)

Removal of CO2 to return the atmosphere to 278ppm
Only if the CO2 levels are not beyond 278 ppm will the rise in temperature be maintained below 1°C, the level at which many scientists have determined to be the danger level. To succeed in being below the dangerous 1°C, member states of the United Nations must commit to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. An initial calculation suggests that between 1105.62GTCO2 and 1842GT CO2 from the atmosphere (see table 1) must be removed. The initial removal phase should start in 2010 and run to 2020, with a research program to determine the required GT GHG to be removed to achieve 278ppm of CO2 by 2050 and socially equitable and environmentally safe and sound methods of CO2 ppm reduction. By the latest in 2020, between 36.85 GT CO2 yr-1 and 61.42 GT CO2 yr-1 must be removed. In the period 2010-2020 natural carbon sinks must be restored.
Emission reductions should be based on global caps for emissions of GHG and must follow a smooth path as shown in Graphs 1, 2 and 3. Carbon elimination must not be used to offset reduction targets, and must be done through socially equitable and environmentally safe and sound methods. Greenhouse Gas Emissions resulting from Destructive land use practices including in the rural, the urban and peri-urban environment must end. Deforestation must end and developing nations whose development will be affected must be compensated. There must be caps on yearly emissions of GHG as per table 1 and graphs 2 and 3 and as required for the 1°C target. Current research only shows cumulative emission budgets for a 2 °C target, the targets in this submission are based on trying to be below a 1 °C target.
Refusing to agree to Targets

The targets must be based on the current and emerging science and be calculated as being a cumulative emissions maximum of at most 360GT CO2 by 2050.

To achieve these massive emissions reductions, an interdisciplinary committee of scientists, economists, sociologists, psychologists, etc. should carry out an assessment which will identify where emissions can be cut most within the shortest timeframes.

This process would assist in determining how individual country limits should be set.

The emissions reduction required to avoid dangerous climate change and the small timeframes available to achieve this are so extreme that the methods used to achieve the required reductions must be based on the maximum achievable targets within the shortest timeframes as described in diagram 2.

Once the individual country limits are assigned, the funding required to achieve this must be allocated through a new created UNFCCC Fund, which will not impact on the world’s poor and vulnerable and will take into account the principle of common but differentiated responsibility that will be core to this process.

Failing to achieve key objectives
*To recognize that the complexity and interdependence of issues inherent are inextricably linked to climate change: the guaranteeing of human rights including social economic and cultural rights and civil and political rights, labour rights women’s rights, children’s rights and indigenous rights; ensuring social justice and the right to development; the preventing war and conflict; and to preserving and conserving the environment; to moving away from the over consumptive model of development and to reducing the ecological footprint;
Please see diagram 2

*To abide by Rio Principles: ¨the precautionary principle, the common and differentiate responsibility principle, the non-transference to other states of substances and activities that are harmful to the environment or health principle, the transboundary principle and the intergenerational principle.
To implement the objective of the UNFCCC to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and conserve carbon sinks including forests and bogs, and thus discharge the obligation under article 2 of the UNFCCC to prevent dangerous anthropogenic levels and

To respect the rule of international law and to act through the establishment of legal enforcement mechanisms through existing legal international instruments such as the ICJ and its auxiliary Chambers or through new instruments such as an International Tribunal established under the UNFCCC.
Committing errors at COP15 in Copenhagen

Because of the global urgency, the mistakes of Copenhagen must not be repeated. In Copenhagen, the pleas of the developing states especially those of the most vulnerable states and reports from scientists and international institutions were discounted

Because of the false time lines and inadequate percentages of emissions reductions and because of the violation of the transparent decision making process, the contents of the Copenhagen Accord   must not be in any way the basis for any future agreement

Still ignoring the urgency
Still failing to commit agree to commit to mandatory emission reductions

Because of the global urgency, and legal obligations there must be the political will to achieve the following objectives;
To return the earth’s temperature to its natural state, that equates to 0 °C above pre-industrial levels and to return the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere to 278 ppm.
To impose strict time frames so that overall global emissions will begin to be reversed as of 2010. There must be a global target for greenhouse gas emission reductions of at least 30% below 1990 levels by 2015, at least 50% below 1990 levels by 2020, at least 75% below 1990 levels by 2030, at least 85% below 1990 levels by 2040 and 100% below 1990 emissions by 2050 (please see table 1 for detailed data calculations)

Overriding the majority of the developing states
- A flawed decision making process

At COP15 2010, on December 17th and 18th, heads of states were making presentations to the plenary. The majority of heads of states were calling for the global community to maintain the rise in temperature to well below 1.5 degrees. Bolivia led the way by demanding that the rise in temperature must remain below 1 degree and the ppm must return to 300ppm. Tragically, it was clear at COP15 that the pleas of the majority of states were discounted not only by rogue states but also by many international NGOS.
On December 7th, Papua New Guinea had proposed that, rather than descend to the lowest common denominator, the parties should strive for consensus with a fall back of 75%. Unfortunately, this proposal was summarily dismissed by the Chair. This proposal should now be accepted and implemented at Cancun.

If one counts the G77 representing 130 developing states along with some low-lying states or small island states which were not members of the G77 and, with some of the member states of the European Union, then possibly over 75% of the signatories of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) would have been prepared to sign and ratify a strong, legally binding Protocol.

It should be noted that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted in 1992 by 150 states out of the 188 then member states (79 %) of the member States of the United Nations. It should also be noted that Article 18 of the Charter of the United Nations reads: “Decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. These questions shall include recommendations with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security.” Undoubtedly, the impact of climate change could be deemed to fall under this category

If there had been a strong legally binding Copenhagen Protocol, then citizens from major greenhouse gas emitting states along with progressive developing states could have used a new legally binding instrument to force the emitting state governments that refuse to take the required actions to cut emissions appropriately to act. The UNFCCC is a legally binding instrument and coupled with a legally binding Copenhagen protocol, could have been used to force the delinquent states to comply either through the international Court of justice (ICJ), through the Chamber on Environmental matters of the ICJ or through other legal instruments such as an international tribunal.

Hopefully the international Climate Justice Tribunal, which was proposed in the Peoples Agreement from Cochabamba, will now be established under the UNFCCC.

Discounting emerging science
At COP15, The dominant developed states ignored not only the developing states but also the emerging science and institutional reports

At COP15, There were important press Conferences on significant emerging data from international scientific bodies and institutions. The emerging science indicated that the global climate crisis was much more urgent than what was conveyed in the 2007 IPCC Report that was based mostly on data from the years 2004 and 2005, and some data from 2006.

The 2007 report itself states that” between climate and biogeochemical cycles. The areas of science covered in this report continue to undergo rapid progress and it should be recognized that the present assessment re?ect scienti?c understanding based on the peer-reviewed literature available in mid-2006.”

The 2007 IPCC Report presented a gradual and smooth increase in scale and severity of impacts with increasing temperature. The reality is that this is unlikely. There are a number of thresholds along the way that are likely to result in step changes of level of impacts once triggered. These ‘tipping points’, or small change can make a big difference. (Source Major Tipping points in the Earth’s Climate System and Consequences for the Insurance Sector, 2009, Tim Lenton, UEA/Tyndall Centre, Anthony Footitt, UEA/Tyndall Centre, Dr. Andrew Dlugolecki, Andlug Consulting). The report suggests that “Historical GHG emissions have already ‘committed’ us to at least 0.6 °C of further warming.” That takes us into a 1.5°C pre-industrial scenario which according to the report would result in an additional 100 GTCO2 emissions. These additional emissions are not considered in IPCC scenarios. Add to this the feedback effects of the melting of the ice sheets and decreases in the albedo and the thresholds in the IPPC reports must be considered unsafe. Please see flow diagram 3 for an example of the possible feedbacks and tipping points. The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios does not include feedbacks.
At a COP15 press conference, a representative from the IPCC stated that at a 2 degree rise above pre-industrial levels, the poor, the disenfranchised and the vulnerable would not survive, and at a1.5 degrees rise, they might survive. Reports from the WMO indicated that the temperature was rising faster, and that climate-related incidents were more intense and more wide-spread than previously estimated, and that drought was advancing more extensively than previously anticipated.
Disregarding research on tipping points
Please see diagram 3

Discounting International institutional reports
At COP15, as well, at press conferences, reports were released (i) from the UN High Commission on Refugees; their report indicated that climate-change related refugees had increased. And (ii) from the WHO that reported on the failure in the negotiations to consider the health impacts of climate change as well as the health benefits and savings from seriously reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
At COP 15 the call for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to rectify the fact that militarism ¬ a major contributor to greenhouse emissions has been excluded from the IPCC deliberations was also ignored.
Undermining of process, by major NGOS, of progressive states

In addition, at COP15, there were many big international NGOS which ignored the pleas of the developing states and the reports from the emerging science and from various institutions and held compromising positions. In many cases they were not even prepared to go close to the positions of the progressive states that were willing to demand the necessary provisions to address the emergency revealed by the current and emerging science. .  For example, while Bolivia was calling for the reduction of parts per million to 300ppm, the 350. org campaign was not willing to change its campaign to encompass Bolivia’s position. While Bolivia was demanding that the temperature must not rise above 1 degree from pre-industrial levels the international NGO, Climate Action Network, was still demanding that the global average temperature must not rise above 2 degrees. 

The Kyotoplus petition also called for limitation of the maximum CO2 emission on an extent with which the climate warming does not go beyond the limit of 2 degrees centigrade,

Compromising by NGOs, on targets and percentages of greenhouse gas emissions

Kyotoplus Petition called for a completely inadequate and negligent proposal which set a national target to cut greenhouse gas emissions at least 25 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020.

SealtheDeal. http://www.sealthedeal2009.org/petitioninvolving NGOs from Canada and the United States called for setting binding targets  to cut greenhouses gases by 2020, AGAIN completely inadequate and negligent.

The NGO tcktcktck.org, and their 250 partners asked, without even mentioning a baseline, for a reduction from developed nations of at least 40% by 2020 again completely inadequate and negligent.

Climate Action Network CAN  stated: We , as citizens of industrialized states, demand our leaders not to fail this last chance and live up to the G8 climate target by fully accepting a 40% emissions reduction  between 1990 and 2020, again completely inadequate and negligent
In addition, at COP 15, many NGOs were asking for 40% below 1990 levels reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 from developed countries and 80% globally by 2050. This position was established through compromise, again completely inadequate and negligent

These proposals were completely inadequate and could result in a temperature increase, in vulnerable areas of more than 4 degrees which would condemn the global community to irreversible social economic cultural, psychological consequences and which would be in breach of article 2 of the UNFCCC. This position has not moved on 1 year later in the build up to Cancun when the science is clearly suggesting that this is totally inadequate to prevent dangerous climate change.

In addition, in Copenhagen, often the media ignored the press conferences on science and institutional reports, and opted to cover flashy NGO demonstrations and failed to point out the disconnect between what the reports from the scientists and institutions were revealing and what data the states were relying on to support the Copenhagen Accord
Defying all perception of democratic decision making
At COP 15, the dominant Greenhouse gas producing states ignored all the emerging data and appeals and proceeded to negotiate in secret. The Copenhagen Accord did not adhere to Article 2 of the UNFCCC, which states that emissions must not pose a danger. The Copenhagen Accord which, if followed would condemn the globe to an increase of temperature way above a rise in 2 degrees Celsius, and would definitely, as the IPCC representative at COP15 indicated cause the poor, disenfranchised and vulnerable to , not survive.

Now in in Cancun there is an opportunity to enter into a legally binding protocol consistent with peremptory norms and the current and emerging science. There is a range of national law related to criminal negligence as well as international laws designed to protect humanity, from international and national crimes. At this stage where the point of no return is approached, legal action must be taken to address the dereliction of duty and irresponsible behaviour of the major per capita greenhouse gas emitting states.
Leading towards Cancun

Now in the lead up to COP 16 Cancun Climate Change 2010 talks, many    big NGOS are also ignoring the pleas of the developing states and the emerging science and demanding more or less the same as in Copenhagen and still asking for inadequate emissions targets and time lines

In Cancun, the time for vested state interest and NGO compromising must end and a firm commitment to address the global state of emergency must prevail.

In Cancun, rather than descending to the lowest common denominator approach to setting climate targets and time frames, member states of the United Nations must acknowledge the emerging science of dwindling glaciers, increasing atmospheric turbulence, desertification, ocean warming and acidification and rising sea levels, and agree to act on the current and emerging science and to institute strong, effective, and mandatory targets and time frames to address the urgency

It is possible that a majority of the member states could agree to a strong legally binding “Cancun protocol” to the UNFCCC. A strong Protocol to the UNFCCC could then be used against the delinquent states, and for example  a case could be taken to the Chamber on Environmental Matters of the International Court of Justice under the UNFCCC, which has been signed and ratified by 192 states, including even the delinquent states SUCH AS Canada and the United States.
In Cancun COP16 States must support the demands contained in the April 22, 2010 People’s Agreement negotiated in Cochabamba Bolivia and endorsed by acclamation by 35,000 participants from wide international range of institution and citizens. These demands reinforce the position taken by Bolivia at the COP15; this position called for the global temperature to remain below 1degree Centigrade and the parts per million to return to 278 ppm

                        PREAMBLE

(i)Failing to commit to emissions reductions and time frames

NOTING WITH DEEP CONCERN THAT states for reasons of vested self-interest refuse to commit to the emission reductions and time frames that are necessary to address the urgency of climate change that discharge obligations under Article 2, of the UNFCCC for the “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere must be at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

CONVINCED THATthere must be the political will to undertake immediate action to return earth’s temperature to its natural pre-industrial level by 2050.

(ii) Failing to discharge UNFCCC obligations

HAVING ADOPTED the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate change in 1992 by a 79% majority decision of the member States of the United Nations, the convention came into force in 1994 and is now ratified by 194 states. The Framework Convention on Climate Change is thus a legally binding document reflecting international peremptory norms;

CONVINCED THATthe Kyoto Protocol with the prominent market based scheme resulted in delaying and undermining the actions required by States to discharge their obligations under the UNFCCC. The Annex 1 developed states in the Kyoto Protocol were not even able to live up to the modest emissions reductions and targets.

BEARING IN MIND THATthe objective of the UNFCCC was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and conserve carbon sinks, and that under Article 2, the signatories incurred the following obligation; “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere must be at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

DEEPLY CONCERNED THATemerging science affirms that this dangerous level equates to a temperature below 1°C, which is the point at which global systems on land, water and air will be so affected as to create vicious feedback cycles and destabilise many ecosystems and human societies.

RECALLING THATunder the UNFCCC, the signatories of the Convention were bound to invoke the precautionary principle that reads:

“Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, …” To achieve this, such policies and measures should take into account different socio-economic contexts, be comprehensive, cover all relevant sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and adaptation, and comprise all economic sectors. Efforts to address climate change should be carried out cooperatively by all Parties. (Article 3. Framework Convention on Climate Change).

This obligation to invoke the precautionary principle complemented the broader Rio Principle:

”Where there is the threat of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent the threat.”

ALARMED THATrather than interpreting “measures” to involve “prevention” (as was the case in the version of the precautionary principle in the Rio Declaration), many member states of the UN have embraced after-act “mitigation” – not preventing something from happening but anticipating or developing a clean-up technology, and then unfortunately, now, many member states are settling for adaptation being the primary focus of climate change negotiations. The primary focus should be prevention.

DEEPLY DISTURBED THAT often states are moving away from the imperative to prevent climate change to simply adaptation to climate change. Rectifying errors rather preventing them.

CONCERNED THAToften states are moving away from the imperative to prevent climate change to the inadequate and illegal objective of simply adapting to climate change. Rectifying errors rather than preventing them

RECALLING THATobligations were incurred in the Framework Convention on Climate Change “to protect the climate system for present and future generations” ; the rights of future generations will be violated if the global community fails to act now to prevent the devastating impacts of climate change, that could also threaten international peace and security

RECALLING that the signatories of the Convention on Natural and Cultural Heritage (UNCNCH) incurred the obligation to protect cultural and Natural Heritage for future generations

AFFIRMING THATthe fundamental principle of intergenerational equity includes the rights of future generations to their cultural, natural heritage and to a safe environment.

DEEPLY DISTURBED THATindustrialized states have defied principle 7 of the 1992 Rio Declaration which was adopted by all states at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). This principle states that:

“States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth’s ecosystem. In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. (Principle 7, Rio Declaration)

AWARE THATthe common and differentiated principle and the principle of intergenerational equity were reaffirmed in the Article 3 of the UNFCCC:

“The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future Generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof. “

AWARE THATStates had agreed to take into consideration `The specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, and of those Parties, especially developing country Parties, that would have to bear a disproportionate or abnormal burden under the Convention, should be given full consideration. (Article 3 Principle 2 UNFCCC)

DEPLORING the fact that most states signatories of the UNFCCC have failed to live up to their obligations and that the signatories are currently in serious breach of their legal obligations to protect humanity and the environment.  They spend more time devising devious strategies to avoid the emission reductions required for the prevention of dangerous interference with our climate

(iii)Dismissing the state of emergency

CONCERNED THATthere are entrenched immovable national interests that will serve to dismiss the state of emergency and block serious binding instruments

DEEPLY CONCERNEDthat the paper published in Nature (no. 458) on the 30 April 2009 which is the up to date current science on climate change emission thresholds states that in order to have an 8-37% chance of not exceeding 2 Degrees we can only emit 886GT CO2 between 2000 and 2050.

FURTHER ALARMED THAT between 2000 and 2010 we have used 363GT CO2 or 41% of the total budget for a high chance of exceeding 2 Degrees. NOTING FURTHER THAT we are currently at 0.78 Degrees above pre-industrial temperatures and committed to at least 0.6 Degrees of further warming. Even more concerned that, at 1.5 Degree, Lenton et al suggest that (The Tipping Points Report commissioned jointly by Allianz and WWF) forest dieback will emit an additional 100Gt of Co2. Reducing the 886 GT limit to 776GT.

ALARMED ABOUT the data from a recent paper by Turney and Jones (Does the Agulhas Current amplify global temperatures during super-interglacials?, Chris S.M. Turney, Richard T. Jones, Journal of Quaternary Science, Volume 25, Issue 6, pages 839–843, September 2010) suggests that at 1.9 Degrees there is a high risk of a rise in sea levels of between 6.6 and 9.4 m and serious disturbance to regional ocean circulations that can amplify warming effects.

DEEPLY CONVINCEDthat based on these facts it is clear that an agreement must be reached this year.

DEEPLY CONCEERNED AS WELL THATthese facts suggest that less than a further 360GT of CO2 in the next 40 years can be emitted and THAT currently 36.3 GT a year is being emitted and that would mean that only ten years of emissions at current rates can be allowed.

AWARE THAT THE ABOVEcurrent scientific understanding demands an immediate and all out agreement and urgent action.

AND AWARE of other feedback mechanisms and tipping points such as a loss of albedo and further forest dieback and effects on regional climate systems. AND AWARE of the emergency being ignored and the weakness of current IPCC science.

DEEPLY DISTURBED THATchanges in world climate would have serious impacts on human health and ANDTHAT concerns about the impacts on human health are mostly absent in the UNFCCC COP deliberations.

AWARE OFThe World Health Organisation findings that estimated, in its “World Health Report 2002?, that climate change was responsible in 2000 for approximately 2.4% of worldwide diarrhoea, 154 000 deaths and affected 5.5 million people’s health. More than 84% of this burden occurred in developing countries

DEEPLY ALARMEDthat the Global Humanitarian Forum Climate Change Human Impact report that summarized data including that issued by WHO on the impacts estimates that in 2009, 325 million people were seriously affected by climate change (based on negative health outcomes), and there were 303,000 deaths as a result of climate change. It predicts that in 2030, 660 million people a year will be affected by climate change and that 471,500 people will die from climate change. These factual estimates invoke very serious legal obligations for immediate action based on the current science. Action that will knowingly cause deaths which number over 10 million must be treated as crimes related to humanity. Climate change could kill 250,000 children next year, and the figure could rise to more than 400,000 by 2030, according to a report by Save the Children, Feeling the Heat.

DEPLORING THATthere has not been a formal acknowledgement, from IPCC scientists submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat, that the world is beyond dangerous climate interference and the world is facing a real and rapidly rising emergency with risks of (never ending) a global climate catastrophe- a state of dire planetary emergency – this is required to generate genuine political will to act to address the emergency;

(iv) Disregarding of peremptory norms

KEEPING IN MIND THATUnder Article 53 of the Convention on the Law of Treaties “Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens) are null and void.

“A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.”

To be designated as a “Peremptory norm “the norm must be accepted and recognized as a peremptory norm by the internationally community of states as a whole. Peremptory norms can be extracted from years of international instruments agreed to by a broad group of states, from widely divergent geographical areas, functioning under a range of legal systems,

NOTING FURTHER THATperemptory norms can be drawn from Conventions, Covenants and Treaties, which have been signed and ratified, and are in force; from Conference Action plans which have been adopted by Consensus, or from UN General Assembly Resolutions and Declaration adopted at the UNGA.

RECOGNIZING THATthese norms are derived from instruments that guarantee human rights including social and Economic and Cultural rights , civil and political rights, labour rights, women’s’ rights and indigenous rights; that ensure social justice, that protect and conserve the environment, move away from the overconsumptive model of development and reduce the ecological footprint and that prevent war and conflict

DEEPLY DISTURBED ABOUTthe potential impacts of climate change on the world’s children who are not able to defend their future rights during their childhood. These children will have to deal with the climate change issue that will have been left to them– the loathsome legacy of the negligent behaviours of those who have preceded them

NOTING THATthe transboundary principle has become a peremptory norm

The Transboundary principle has been found in different forms in the following international instruments:

(a) 1972 in the UNCHE in Stockholm; Principle 21

States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. UNCHE

(b) 1992 Convention on the Law of Seas

“states shall take all measures necessary to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction or control are so conducted as not to cause damage by pollution to other States and their environment, and that pollution arising from incidents or activities under their jurisdiction or control does not spread beyond the areas where they exercise sovereign rights in accordance with this Convention.” (Art. 194. 2., Law of the Seas, 1982)

(c) 1992 Rio Declaration

Principle 2 States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. (Principle 2 Rio declaration)

(d)1992 Preamble Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal In addition, the liability in accordance with international law is recognized in relation to their international obligations concerning the protection of human health and protection and preservation of the environment, and are liable in accordance with international law (Preamble Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, 1992);

(e) 1994 Convention on the Environmental Impact assessment in a transboundary Context.

Mindful of the need and importance to develop anticipatory policies and of preventing, mitigating and monitoring significant adverse environmental impact in general and more specifically in a transboundary context (11.9.Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, 1994)

CONCURRING THATthe essence of the transboundary principle could be applied in some way to support the duty not to harm other states and could be applied to the transboundary impact of greenhouse gas emissions

(v) Omitting or minimising important considerations in the UNFCCC processes

water

RECOGNISING, the vital role of water as a contributor to and as a consequence of climate change must be included in the discussion on climate change

REGRETTING THATthe 1992 commitment to freshwater protection is being abandoned;

“Freshwater is a unitary resource. Long-term development of global freshwater requires holistic management of resources and a recognition of the interconnectedness of the elements related to freshwater and freshwater quality. There are few regions of the world that are still exempt from problems of loss of potential sources of freshwater supply, degraded water quality and pollution of surface and groundwater sources. Major problems affecting the water quality of rivers and lakes arise, in variable order of importance according to different situations, from inadequately treated domestic sewage, inadequate controls on the discharges of industrial waste waters, loss and destruction of catchment areas, ill-considered siting of industrial plants, deforestation, uncontrolled shifting cultivation and poor agricultural practices. This gives rise to the leaching of nutrients and pesticides. Aquatic ecosystems are disturbed and living freshwater resources are threatened. Under certain circumstances, aquatic ecosystems are also affected by agricultural water resource development projects such as dams, river diversions, water installations and irrigation schemes. Erosion, sedimentation, deforestation and desertification have led to increased land degradation, and the creation of reservoirs has, in some cases, resulted in adverse effects on ecosystems. Many of these problems have arisen from a development model that is environmentally destructive and from a lack of public awareness and education about surface and groundwater resource protection. Ecological and human health effects are the measurable consequences, although the means to monitor them are inadequate or non-existent in many countries. There is a widespread lack of perception of the linkages between the development, management, use and treatment of water resources and aquatic ecosystems. A preventive approach, where appropriate, is crucial to the avoiding of costly subsequent measures to rehabilitate, treat and develop new water supplies” (18.35., Freshwater, Agenda 21, UNCED, 1992)

Biodiversity

DISMAYED THATbiodiversity has been ignored in the analysis of impact from climate change

THAT“In-situ conservation” means the conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats and the maintenance and recovery of viable populations of species in their natural surroundings and, in the case of domesticated or cultivated species, in the surroundings where they have developed their distinctive properties (Definition, Convention on Biological Diversity, UNCED, 1992)

RECALLING the obligation to take action where necessary for the conservation of biological diversity through the in situ conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats, as well as primitive cultivars and their wild relatives, and the maintenance and recover of viable populations of species in their natural surroundings, and implement ex situ measures, preferably in the source country. In situ measures should include the reinforcement of terrestrial, marine and aquatic protected area systems and embrace, inter alia, vulnerable freshwater and other wetlands and coastal ecosystems, such as estuaries, coral reefs and mangroves;…(15.5 g. Biodiversity, Agenda 21 UNCED, 1992)

RECOGNIZING the close and traditional dependence of many indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles on biological resources, and the desirability [necessity] of sharing equitably benefits arising from the use of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices relevant to the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components (Preamble, Convention on Biological Diversity, UNCED, 1992)

Subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices (8j Convention on Biological Diversity, UNCED, 1992)

AWAREof the following obligation in the Convention on Biological Diversity

Subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices (8j Convention on Biological Diversity, UNCED, 1992)

MINDFUL THAT

The loss of biological diversity may reduce the resilience of ecosystems to climatic variations and air pollution damage. Atmospheric changes can have important impacts on forests, biodiversity, and freshwater and marine ecosystems, as well as on economic activities, such as agriculture (9.16., Atmosphere, Agenda 21, 1992)

DEEPLY CONCERNED THATthe importance of Traditional Knowledge and practices in developing strategies to address climate change has not been given prominence in the UNFCCC.

Human Rights

NOTING WITH DEEP CONCERN THATthe UNFCCC process has disregarded the fact that “climate change poses an immediate and far-reaching threat to people and communities around the world and has implications for the full enjoyment of human rights” (Human Rights Council Resolution 7/23)

BEARING IN MIND THATa United Nations formed Human Rights Council panel has emphasized that a successful outcome of climate change negotiations matters for human rights. The human rights perspective is indispensable to the ongoing negotiations leading to the year-end Cancun Climate Change Conference As it has been in all the Climate Change Conferences.

“As you engage in those negotiations, you must bear in mind the grave human rights consequences of a failure to take decisive action now,” said United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Deputy High Commissioner Kyung-wha Kang when she opened the panel on 15 June.

(www.ohchr.org)

“A successful outcome of ongoing climate change negotiations matters for human rights. A new climate change agreement must be fair, balanced and sufficiently ambitious to be effective.

“Climate change is related not only to environmental factors but also to poverty, discrimination and inequalities – this is why climate change is a human rights issue,” said Kang, adding that the human rights perspective is particularly well suited to analyzing how climate change affects people differently.

Women’s Rights

DEPLORING THATContinuing environmental degradation that affects all human lives often has a more direct impact on women. Women’s health and their livelihood are threatened by pollution and toxic wastes, large-scale deforestation, desertification, drought, and depletion of the soil and of coastal and marine resources, with a rising incidence of environmentally related health problems and even death reported among women and girls. Those most affected are rural and indigenous women, whose livelihood and daily subsistence depends directly on sustainable ecosystems (Art. 36 Advance draft, Platform of Action, UN. Conference on Women May 15)

Food Security

CONCERNED THATthe impact of climate change on hunger and food security has not been discussed sufficiently at the UNFCCC negotiations. The longstanding commitment to eradicate hunger is absent.

“Time is short. Urgent and sustained action is vital. The conference, therefore, calls upon all peoples expressing their will as individuals, and through their Governments, and non-governmental organizations to work together to bring about the end of the age old scourge of hunger. (Universal Declaration on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition, 1974)

REGRETTING THATthe impact of climate change land use has not been addressed sufficiently at the UNFCCC negotiations. The longstanding commitment to ending inappropriate and uncontrolled land use is absent.

“Inappropriate and uncontrolled land uses are a major cause of degradation and depletion of land resources. Present land use often disregards the actual potentials, carrying capacities and limitations of land resources as well as their diversity in space. It is estimated that the world’s population, now at 5.4 billion, will be 6.25 billion by the turn of the century. The need to increase food production to meet the expanding needs of the population will put enormous pressure on all natural resources, including land“ (14.34., Agriculture, Agenda 21, UNCED, 1992)

Soil fertility

AND THAT

“Land degradation is the most important environmental problem affecting extensive areas of land in both developed and developing countries. The problem of soil erosion is particularly acute in developing countries, while problems of salinization, water logging, soil pollution and loss of soil fertility are increasing in all countries. (14.44. Agriculture, Agenda 21, UNCED, 1992)

Vegetable protein

ALARMED THATthe contribution to greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the dependency on animal protein has not been sufficiently addressed in the UNFCCC and IPCC processes, and evidence indicates that the contribution of reliance on animal protein to the greenhouse gas methane is substantial.

RECALLING THATat the DPINGO 2007 Conference on Climate Change DR Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC, in response to a question about a practical proposal to address Climate change responded that moving from a meat based protein diet to a vegetable based protein diet would be most productive

(vi) Eroding of the Commission on Sustainable Development

CONCERNED THATthe mandate of the Commission on Sustainable Development has been eroded. Its mandate was originally to ensure effective follow-up to Agenda 21, and other UNCED obligations and commitments. As such in light of the failure to address climate change at CSD should intervene and have been   prevented from doing so by the current power structures and lack of NGO action. The Commission on Sustainable Development, in light of the failures of its current format, should be upgraded to a Council, which would be able deal with new or emerging environmental threats, and with on-going threats, such as climate change, which requires continuous intervention. Also too often at the Commission on Sustainable Development, serious polices, which would address the urgency are thwarted by the requirement to reach consensus, and serious consideration must be given to a different negotiation process and requirements.

NOTING THATthe General Assembly Resolution A/RES/47/191 states that the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) should ensure effective follow-up to Agenda 21, and other UNCED obligations and commitments

DISMAYED THATthe CSD failed in this role in its current format as shown by the failure of negotiations at CSD15, especially to produce a negotiated outcome on climate change and other issues. This failure was also evident in the weak document emerging from CSD 17

DISMAYED THATgovernment and non-governmental organisations have embraced the backward-looking agreement made at WSSD and are building on this agreement which is not an appropriate mechanism for instituting a socially equitable and environmentally sound world

DISMAYED THATsince its conception in 1992, changes in how CSD functions have progressively affected its ability to fulfill its mandate in its original form

CONCERNED THATat CSD 11 (UN E/2003/29, E/CN.17/2003/6) it was decided that in order to fulfill the CSD mandate the work of the Commission will be organized in a series of two-year action-oriented implementation cycles, which will include an evaluation of progress in implementing Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, while focusing on identifying constraints and obstacles in the process of implementation with regard to the selected thematic cluster of issues for the cycle

MINDFUL THATthis two year rotation process has not worked because urgent issues wait for long periods of time to be addressed, this in itself in fundamentally flawed. For example climate change waited three years and in its two-year cycle no adequate agreement was reached. Now in the subsequent meetings on for example water any agreements may be undermined by the lack of action on climate. The current issues as they relate to sustainable development may be irreversible and this procrastination will only mean that the delay is more critical than it already is. This delay also prevents the CSD from performing its role as outlined in General Assembly Resolution A/RES/47/191.

(vii) Failing to address emerging and current science and tipping points

ALARMED THATthe 2007 IPPC report will still be the basis of the negotiations in 2010 and 2011. and the dire warnings in the emerging science will be disregarded because of the approach of the IPCC to not proceed with releasing data unless there is a high level of concurrence.

Updated Report or Reliance on out-dated IPCC Report

The last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report is from 2007 IPCC Report that was based mostly on data from the years 2004 and 2005, and some data from 2006 and thus much of the research could be over six years old. Most recent scientific evidence indicates that the impact of climate change is happening much more rapidly than expected. Apart from the serious concerns about the emerging data the fact that a new IPCC report was not ready for Copenhagen and will not be ready until September 14 2014 (ARS Synthesis Report) continues to be troubling. In the absence of this synthesis report, in Cancun the current emerging data should be given the prominence that is deserved.

DEEPLY CONCERNED THATthe 2007 report itself states that” between climate and biogeochemical cycles. The areas of science covered in this report continue to undergo rapid progress and it should be recognised that the present assessment re?ects scienti?c understanding based on the peer-reviewed literature available in mid-2006.”

DEEPLY CONCERNED THATthe 2007 IPCC Report presented a gradual and smooth increase in scale and severity of impacts with increasing temperature. The reality is that this is unlikely. There are a number of thresholds along the way that are likely to result in step changes of level of impacts once triggered. These ‘tipping points’, or small change can make a big difference.). For the report suggests that “Historical GHG emissions have already ‘committed’ us to at least 0.6 °C of further warming.” That takes us into a 1.5°C pre-industrial scenario which according to the report would result in an additional 100 GTCO2 emissions from forest dieback. This is the equivalent to more than 20% of available emissions not considered in IPCC scenarios. Add to the feedback effects of the melting of the ice sheets and decrease albedo and the thresholds in the IPPC reports may become unsafe. Please see flow diagram 2 for an example of the possible feedbacks and tipping points.

Source: Major Tipping points in the Earth’s Climate System and Consequences for the Insurance Sector, 2009, Tim Lenton, UEA/Tyndall Centre, Anthony Footitt, UEA/Tyndall Centre, Dr. Andrew Dlugolecki, Andlug Consulting,

DEEPLY CONCERNEDthat the tendency for the science of climate change is to suggest a worsening scenario. The “burning embers” shown in diagram 3 displaying the climate impacts for 5 categories, as taken from IPCC in 2001 (on the left) and updated in 2009 (on the right). (Paper by Smith et Al, 2009, Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the IPCC PNAS)

Major changes from the 2001 to 2009 assessment are:

“substantial or severe risks” of extreme weather events at temperature at 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels are now present

“Moderately significant” – risks of “large-scale discontinuities” below 2 degrees are now present and these were “very low” in 2001”.

Please see diagram 3

This tendency is alarming

EQUALLY ALARMED THATthe new IPCC report will not be released until 2014 not only after the COP16 in Cancun but maybe beyond the point at which emission reductions can safely be reduced. The Working Group I report is scheduled to be finalized in September 2013, the Working Group II report in March 2014 and the Working Group III report in April 2014. The scope and content of the AR5 Synthesis Report will be developed in the course of the year 2010. The Synthesis Report is scheduled to be finalized in September 2014.

EQUALLY ALARMED THATthe 2007 IPCC report states that the effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 on large scale terrestrial uptake cannot be quantified reliably at present.

FULLY AWARE THATscientists now know with total confidence that any global warming target above 0.8°C is planetary suicide because of events happening to the Arctic, the oceans and coral reefs today at today’s warming of 0.78°C.

DEEPLY DISTURBED ALONG WITHLenton et al WHO suggest that those historical Emissions have already committed us to at least 0.6C of further warming. And since the cut off for material reviewed in AR4 the Earth System has displayed some abrupt changes, especially in the Northern Cryosphere. Deeply disturbed that conceivably there could be tipping elements that have not been triggered yet but which we are already committed to being triggered and/or have already been triggered, but we have yet to fully realize. Although having the potential to affect very significant numbers of people such elements are virtually absent from policy and decision contexts concerning what changes in temperature or other variables constitute ‘dangerous climate change’. Deeply disturbed that current commitment to climate change may be as high as 2 degrees, this is higher than some of the tipping points and as such the urgency of required targets is accentuated. Deeply disturbed that some tipping elements e exhibit strong interrelationships.

Source: Major Tipping points in the Earth’s Climate System and Consequences for the Insurance Sector, 2009, Tim Lenton, UEA/Tyndall Centre, Anthony Footitt, UEA/Tyndall Centre, Dr. Andrew Dlugolecki, Andlug Consulting, The Tipping Points Report

AWARE THATnegotiation process for the international law on climate change has been undermined by the interaction of global economic and nation based power structures.

RECOGNIZING THATthis has led to the adoption and justification of international agreements that are neither legal, realistic nor scientific with regards tackling the issue of global warming.

Today’s warming is projected to double by today’s atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and last for over 1000 years. The published science for several years shows that additional methane is being emitted as carbon feedback to global warming from warming Northern peat lands thawing permafrost and melting subsea Arctic methane hydrates obviously. This methane Arctic carbon feedback is recognized as a major danger with regards atmospheric greenhouse elevation and global warming. Another reason we know this is the state of the world’s coral reefs and the opinion from scientists that it may already be too late to prevent their practical total loss from global warming and acidification (N.B. irreversible damage to natural ecosystems under FCCC). Realistically it may be too late now to avoid losing the great coral reefs and to avoid runaway global heating. (Dr. Peter Carter, personal communication, 2009).

(viii) Continuing the UNFCCC negotiating processes and other UN processes which impede change perpetuating institutional problems

UNFCCC negotiating processes

MINDFUL THATArticle 18 of the Charter of the United Nations reads: “Decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. These questions shall include recommendations with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security.” Undoubtedly, the impact of climate change could be deemed to fall under this category.

NOTING THAT the UNFCCCwas adopted by 150 of the then188 members of the United Nations

RECALLING THATPapua New Guinea had proposed that at Copenhagen, states should not descend to the lowest Common denominator but strive for consensus with a fallback of 75%

RECALLING THATunder article 2 of the Montreal Protocol, it is stated that “the Parties shall make every effort to reach agreement by consensus. If all efforts at consensus have been exhausted, and no agreement reached, such decisions shall, as a last resort, be adopted by a two-thirds majority vote of the Parties present and voting representing a majority of the Parties”

DEEPLY DISTURBED THATmany politicians in developed countries “receive political donations” from the military, fossil fuel, nuclear, biofuel, large-scale – hydro etc. industries, and when no longer in politics sit on the boards of these industries

EQUALLY DISTURBED THATdeveloped nations exercise economic and political leverage on developing states to interfere with the international climate change prevention process

EQUALLY DISTURBED THATin the build up to the COP Cancun Climate Change 2010 talks and last year for the COP Copenhagen 2009 talks many BIG NGOs were asking and are still asking for inadequate emissions targets and time lines. There is a long history of compromising for coverage on the climate change issue for example in Copenhagen many NGOS including tcktcktck.org and their 250 partners asked for a reduction from developed nations of at least 40% by 2020 without even mentioning a baseline

DEEPLY DISTURBED THATTckTckTck and its 250 partners continue to support the following inadequate and negligent position:

The Official Campaign Asks: We want our political leaders to be in Copenhagen and to show historic leadership in achieving a treaty that is fair, ambitious, and binding:

•        Reduce developed country emissions by at least 40% by 2020.

The statement is a complete contradiction in terms and misleading since the demand of 40% by 2020 for developed countries will not achieve climate change prevention and according to the science will have serious health, social, human right, and environmental consequences

NOTE: It appears that on Monday, November 30, 2009, a U.S. federal trademark registration was filed for tcktcktck. This trademark is owned by Euro RSCG Worldwide, LLC, 350 Hudson Street, New York, 10014.These PR firms have as clients major nuclear and genetically engineered food and crops corporations

ASTONISHED THATwhile the Climate Action Network (CAN)  bestows well deserved “fossil” awards on states, CAN, by following the herd mentality, continues to be meek in demanding for the rise in temperature to remain below not 1 degree, as some developing states demand, but below  1.5 degrees

NOTING WITH REGRETthat the practice of anglocentricity at the United Nations persists in the negotiating and working groups AND THAT in the plenary, there is a disproportion number of interventions by the umbrella Developed groups

Multistakeholder processes

NGOs

NOTING WITH CONCERN THATmany international NGOs are beholden to the military, fossil fuel, nuclear, biofuel, large-scale – hydro etc. industries through having corporate members on their boards and through receiving corporate funding

DEEPLY CONCERNED THATmany big international NGOs are not demanding what must be done and instead demand what is expedient or what is in their own self-interest; they are often more concern about sustaining themselves rather than in sustaining the planet. For example  in Copenhagen, an umbrella NGO like tcktcktck.org , and many of its members such as 350.org and CAN  had weak positions; and unfortunately overshadowed the NGOS that were willing to make bolder demands

COGNIZANT THATthese NGOs undermined not only other NGOs that were willing to espouse stronger demands, but also States that were willing to lead. Compromising for coverage is a fundamental systemic constraint preventing change. Also they have displayed “marginalisation avoidance“` where Big NGOS are also reluctant to risk demanding what they perceive might be deemed to marginalize them and opt for the lowest common denominator because of the political implication of offending their funders if they take the strong position that they themselves even know is needed.

AWARE THATthere is substantial evidence of this within the big environmental movement often attaining and especially retaining charitable status involves limited political activity. Political activity is often perceived to be any position that seriously challenges the status quo. Institutes with charitable status, which support and advance the status quo, are not deemed to be engaged in political activity

CONCERNED THATNGOs are not required to disclose their source of funding which might put them in a conflict of interest

CONCERNED THATAll NGOS, including industry front group participating at the UN Conferences, are not required to reveal sources of funding or to divulge, sources of corporate funding, or the corporate interests of any board members

Labour

BEARING IN MIND THATlabour often opposes for economic reasons strong recommendations to curb the phasing out of fossil fuel industries and that corporations and states have ignored labour demands to institute the fair and just transition principle and phase out fossil fuels

Business

AWARE AND CONCERNED THATover the years at the UN many polluting industries have set up industry front NGOs

DISTURBED THATafter Rio many states set up a multisectoral round table consensus based- decision-making process which glorifies conflict of interest through the participation of corporate vested interests.

NOTING WITH INCREASING CONCERN THATstates have often devolved their power and responsibility by forming “public private partnerships” which often, through the profit motive, undermine the state obligations to the commons

RECOGNISING THATthe developing countries are aware that there are many barriers to transfer of technology to developing countries. Intellectual Property Rights are one such barrier particularly where the transfer involves development of domestic capacities to absorb, innovate based on the knowledge and commercialization of the results. (Third World Network, 2009)

CONCERNED ABOUTthe influence of transnational corporations on the UNFCCC and about the current trend for public/private partnerships in United Nations sustainable development policy; this trend must be discontinued because it  inherently compromises the public process. There must be public funds available for promoting socially equitable and environmentally sound practices and for these funds to be channelled into their appropriate international arenas.

In terms of climate change prevention, funds must be channelled into The Fund for the Implementation of the UNFCCC.

Science

EQUALLY CONCERNED THATthe science representatives at the UN are beholden to corporate interests

(ix) Promulgating unsustainable patterns of consumption and disregarding conserving resources

Unsustainable consumption

DISMAYED THATStates, primarily the industrialised states, have not lived up to the years of commitments to move away from the current model of over-consumption;

TAKING INTO ACCCOUNT THATone of the most serious problems now facing the planet is that associated with historical patterns of unsustainable consumption and production, leading to environmental degradation, aggravation of poverty and imbalances in the development of countries. (4.3 Changing consumption patterns,  Agenda 21 UNCED)

DEEPLY DISTURBED THATaround the world many of the basic resources on which future generations will depend for their survival and well-being are being depleted and environmental degradation is intensifying, driven by unsustainable patterns of production and consumption, unprecedented growth in population, widespread and persistent poverty, and social and economic inequality (Preamble, 1.2. International Conference on Population and Development, 1994)

Some patterns of consumption, production and development have the potential for increasing the vulnerability to natural disasters, particularly of the poor and socially disadvantaged groups. Convention for reducing disasters

REAFFIRMING THAT...the major cause of the continued deterioration of the global environment is the unsustainable pattern of consumption and production, particularly in industrialized countries, which is a matter of grave concern, aggravating poverty and imbalances. (4.3. Changing consumption patterns, Agenda 21. 1992)

Failing to conserve resources

CONVINCED THAT States and citizens around the world must conserve resources

RECALLING the committing to conservation of natural resources in the Universal Declaration on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition, 1974)

To assure the proper conservation of natural resources being utilized, or which might be utilized, for food production, all countries must collaborate in order to facilitate the preservation of the environment, including the marine environment. (Sect. 8., Universal Declaration on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition, 1974)

AND in on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order,

To promote international co-operation in research and development in exploration and exploitation, conservation and the legitimate utilization of natural resources and all sources of energy (transfer of technology Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, 1974 IV e).

Recalling also the commitment In World Charter of Nature, 1982) World Charter of Nature Man

Humans can alter nature and exhaust natural resources by their actions or the consequences and, therefore, must fully recognize the urgency of maintaining the stability and quality of nature and of conserving natural resources and preserving nature (Preamble, UN Resolution, 37/7, World Charter of Nature, 1982) World Charter of Nature, 1982)

RECALLING AS WELL the commitment in the law of seas to conserve the living resource in the sea The coastal State, taking into account the best scientific evidence available to it, shall ensure through proper conservation and management measures that the maintenance of the living resources in the exclusive economic zone is not endangered by over-exploitation. As appropriate, the coastal State and competent international organizations, whether subregional, regional or global, shall co-operate to this end. (Art. 61. 2. Law of Seas, Conservation of the Living Resource, 1982)

AWARE OF the commitment, in the ending of Deforestation Chapter in Agenda 21 to conserve forest

The present situation calls for urgent and consistent action for conserving and sustaining forest resources. The greening of suitable areas, in all its component activities, is an effective way of increasing public awareness and participation in protecting and managing forest resources. It should include the consideration of land use and tenure patterns and local needs and should spell out and clarify the specific objectives of the different types of greening activities (11. 13. Deforestation, Agenda 21, UNCED, 1992)

AWARE of the commitment in the chapter on agriculture to indigenous conservation practices. Collect and record information on indigenous conservation and rehabilitation practices and farming systems as a basis for research and extension programmes. (14.47 c., Agriculture, Agenda 21 UNCED 1992)

(x). Disregarding the plight of the most vulnerable

DISTURBED THAT it is estimated that 50 of the world’s poorest countries collectively produce less than one per cent of the global greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. These countries have undoubtedly been Because of the global disproportionally affected by climate change, and the responsibility must be on the shoulders of the developed states. (Humanitarian Forum)

DEEPLY CONCERNED THAT the report ‘The Anatomy of a Silent Crisis (2009) by the Global Humanitarian Forum, led by Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General, states that: “Developing countries bear over nine-tenths of the climate change burden: 98 percent of the seriously affected and 99 percent of all deaths from weather-related disasters, along with over 90 percent of the total economic losses. The 50 Least Developed Countries contribute less than 1 percent of global carbon emissions.

DISMAYED THAT the exploitation of human and natural resources by developed states, in developing states, and states in transition has undermined the ability of the latter states to address the impact of climate change 

DEEPLY DISTURBED that the main victims of climate change will be the world’s poorest nations and communities, and appalled that when per capita emissions are considered it is the high emitting rich who will suffer least while they inflict these emissions on the poor who emit less.

CONCERNED THAT when per capita state emissions are calculated, often a substantial part of the emissions in developing states have resulted from practices of transnational corporations based in developed states; these emissions in the developing states have served to benefit less the developing states than the developed states`

CONCERNED THAT there is an unfulfilled climate debt owed by the developed states to the developing states

CONCERNED THAT the discrepancy in the carbon footprint between the industrialised and non-industrialised states continues to be ignore

ALARMED THAT states opposed to the Copenhagen Accord were pressured or coerced to adopt the accord

REAFFIRMINGTHAT the Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order (NIEO) in calling for Extension of active assistance to developing countries by the whole international community, free of any political or military conditions (4 k., Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, 1974)

AND REAFFIRMING THAT the solemn proclamation of our united determination to work urgently for the Establishment of a New International Economic Order based on equity, sovereign equality, interdependence, common interest and co-operation among all States, irrespective of their economic and social systems which shall correct inequalities and redress existing injustices, make it possible to eliminate the widening gap between the developed and the developing countries and ensure steadily accelerating economic and social development and peace and justice for present and future generation… (Preamble, Declaration on the Establishment of a new international economic order, 1974)

AWARE OF the imperative to abide by principle 14 of the Rio Declaration

States should effectively cooperate to discourage or prevent the relocation and transfer to other States of any activities and substances that cause severe environmental degradation or are found to be harmful to human health. (Principle 14 Rio Declaration, 1992)

AWARE THAT Developed countries have an environmental debt to the world since they are responsible for 70% of historical carbon emissions into the atmosphere since 1750.

DEPLORING THATthe long standing commitment to transfer the peace dividend to developing countries has been disregarded:

In 1976 at Habitat 1, a UN conference in Vancouver member states of the United Nations affirmed the following in relation to the military budgets and armaments:

“The waste and misuse of resources in war and armaments should be prevented. All countries should make a firm commitment to promote general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, in particular in the field of nuclear disarmament. Part of the resources thus released should be utilized so as to achieve a better quality of life for humanity and particularly for the peoples of developing countries” (II, 12 Habitat 1).

CONCERNED ABOUTthe reluctance to invest in socially equitable and environmentally sound practices

PROCLAIMING THATall States shall take measures to extend the benefits of science and technology to all strata of the population and to both men and women and to protect them, both socially and materially, from possible harmful effects of the misuse of scientific and technological developments… (Art. 6, Declaration on the Use of Scientific and Technological Progress in the Interests of Peace)

KEEPING IN MIND THATthe major greenhouse gas emitting states have inequitably occupied the atmospheric space of developing states; this occupation of atmospheric space arises as a result of many of the fossil fuel industries function in developing states primarily to benefit not the developing states but the developed ones.

Intellectual Property Rights

OBSERVING THATthat Intellectual property rights (IP) impede the transfer of socially equitable and environmentally sound

REGRETTING THEimpact of IP In light of the imminent challenges posed by climate change and the patenting trend (with ownership of technology focused in industrialized nations, a trend likely to continue more robustly in coming years), there is need for action on the part of members negotiating at the UNFCCC to agree to measures that overcome the IP barriers and facilitate transfer of technology as well as associated skills and know-how.

ALARMED THATstates opposed to the Copenhagen Accord were pressured or coerced to adopt the accord

(xi) Proposing unconscionable and inequitable funding mechanisms

DEPLORINGthe failure of current funding proposals to begin to address in any way, the long standing climate debt

MINDFUL THATthe developed states have failed to act on the longstanding commitment to transfer .7 % of GDP for overseas development aid (ODA) to developing and that many developed states have, rather than fulfilling this commitment and adding 7% of the GDP to address the climate debt owed to developing states, These States are diverting or contemplating diverting ODA funds to service the climate debt.

MINDFUL THATthe Breton Woods Institutions, since their inception, have been responsible for unfortunate policies such as the IMF Structural Adjustment programmes and many unsustainable mega projects such as those funded by the World Bank)

DEEPLY CONCERN THATin the UNFCCC deliberations the proposed funds are to be administered by the World Bank

NOTING WITH CONCERN AS WELL that the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) has failed to achieve its mandate which was to fund projects that would contribute to the discharging of the obligations under the UNFCCC.

REGRETTING THATthe Global Environmental Facility is involved in funding climate change projects, which involve biofuels, nuclear and crop (genetic) engineering. AND THAT the GEF is a developed world instrument, and it does not implement policies with the ultimate goals of the UNFCCC in mind, AND THAT the GEF is undermined by its being beholden in industry interests, and as such cannot function under its title as the funding mechanism for the UNFCCC.

OBSERVING THATbilateral funding, often with funder-interest conditions, fails to serve the needs of the disenfranchised, of the vulnerable and of the poor and the objectives of the UNFCCC

RECALLING THATat Habitat II all states made the following commitment; to ensure that corporations, including transnational corporations comply with … and international law, including international environment law

(xii) Advocating false solutions and condoning institutions that undermine the necessary change

REMINDED OFthe failure to act on the commitment made under Chapter 9 of Agenda 21 – the section on Atmosphere, which calls for environmentally sound renewable energy:

New and renewable energy sources are solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, wind, hydro, ….geothermal, ocean, animal and human power, as referred to in the reports of the Committee on the Development and Utilization of New and Renewable Sources of Energy, prepared specifically for the Conference 2? (See A/CONF.151/PC/119 and A/AC.218/1992/5)

AFFIRMING ALSO THATnuclear energy is not a solution to climate change because, although promulgated by proponents, as “safe, clean, and cheap”, there is clear and valid scientific evidence of its inherent dangers: lack of safety (emissions into both air and ground water), security-linked issues, unresolved (and likely irresolvable) waste disposal problems. And finally “there is the inextricable link between civil nuclear energy and the development of nuclear arms.” (Dr. Fred Knelman, author of “Nuclear Energy: The Unforgiving Technology”.)

NOTING WITH DISMAY THATthe serious equity, health, and security consequences, especially on the land of indigenous peoples and marginalized communities of large-scale biofuel large-scale hydroelectric projects, and ecologically, and socially unacceptable location of small-scale hydro projects

NOTING WITH DISMAY THATCarbon offsetting schemes, instead of reducing emissions, undermine real measures to tackle climate change. Offsetting schemes encourage individuals, businesses and governments to emit dangerous carbon into the atmosphere and in effect results in the UNFCCC and especially the Kyoto Protocol to be used to emit rather than to cut emissions in breach of article 2.

APPREHENSIVE OFthe use of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) as a means of discharging obligations in energy generation projects; the CDMs have been deemed neither to have benefited the developing countries nor to be in accordance with the principles of the UNFCCC.

CONCURRING WITHthe developing states at the climate change meeting in Bangkok (Bangkok climate change talks: 28 September – 9 October 2009) that “market-based” or “market centre approaches, which are being proposed by developed states must be opposed because they will not serve the needs of development

CONVINCED THATa primary obstacle to the use of more sustainable forms of energy is the enormous amounts of government economic subsidies that perpetuate the myths of “cheap” fossil fuels and large-scale hydropower or “clean” nuclear power. (United Nations E/CN.17/2001/6/Add.5, Multi-Stake Holder Dialogue on Sustainable Energy and Transport)

CONVINCED THATmarket-centre approaches are neither an efficient nor an equitable framework for the achievement of the UNFCCC objectives

CONCURRING WITHthe Report prepared for the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues THAT The International Panel on Forests cites, among others, discriminatory international trade, trade distorting policies, structural adjustment programmes (SAPs), external debt, market distortions and market failure, perverse subsidies, undervaluation of wood and non-wood forest products, and poorly regulated investments as the international underlying causes of deforestation (2007: Report to Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues)

CONCURRING AS WELLwith the Report prepared for the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues that “The environmental justice approach which strikes at the underlying causes of global warming was defeated when the Convention took a more market-based approach as seen in the proposals of the Kyoto Protocol.” Annex 1 countries (38 industrialized countries) pledged that by 2012 they will reduce their emissions by an average of 5.2 percent below the l990 levels by buying “carbon credits” from less polluting countries or corporations and by investing in projects which “sequester” or “store” carbon. None of the three market-based “flexible mechanisms” tackle directly the physical root causes of global warming: the transfer of fossil fuels from underground, where they are effectively isolated from the atmosphere, to the air”

AND WITH A FURTHER STATEMENTin the Report: The flexible mechanisms allow Northern countries to avoid or delay reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allows Northern countries to finance projects in the South to mitigate climate change in return for credits, which are banked and ultimately used to license continued pollution at home. Joint Implementation means that Northern countries can finance projects aimed at mitigating climate change in other Northern (often Eastern European) and Southern countries, receiving credits accordingly. With these in place, traders and bankers have started establishing carbon exchanges in those countries where major stock exchanges are based. (2007: Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues)

CONCURRING WITHthe  Cochabamba People’s Agreement  that  “under capitalism, Mother Earth is converted into a source of raw materials, and human beings into consumers and a means of production, into people that are seen as valuable only for what they own, and not for what they are”. AND THAT “Capitalism requires a powerful military industry for its processes of accumulation and imposition of control over territories and natural resources, suppressing the resistance of the peoples”.

FULLY AWARE THAT International Trade agreements, such as GATT, and the subsequent WTO, along with regional trade agreements, have undermined international resolve to seriously address unsustainable practices, and to enforce regulations that would advance and in many cases have been used to undermine development, by sovereign states, of socially equitable environmentally safe and sound renewable energy, transportation, agriculture, forestry etc.

AND THAT given that all states have ratified the UNFCCC and are mutually bound by the UNFCCC, if an fossil fuel exporting states wishes, for environmental reasons, to end production of fossil fuel, other importing states cannot take the exporter to the WTO Tribunal because the states are mutually bound by an existing instrument. (Presentation of the Monitoring section of the WTO at 2009 WTO Conference)

(xiii) Reneging on commitments to socially equitable, environmentally safe and sound transportation renewable energy, transportation, agriculture,

MINDFUL THATin1976 at the Habitat I Conference, there was a commitment to address the problem of transportation:

Consideration should be given to the radical reversal of current trends, both in terms of facilities for and modes of transport in order to prevent further deterioration of the situation where larger cities are congested with private vehicles which in most countries cater only to a minority while adequate public transport is unavailable to urban and rural residents. (Recommendation C 14 Transportation and communication, a Habitat, I 1976)

Policies on transportation and communication should promote desired patterns of development to satisfy the needs of the majority of the population, to assure the distribution of activities to favour mass transportation, and to reduce congestion and pollution by motor vehicles. (Recommendation C 14 Transportation and communication, b Habitat, I 1976)

STRESSING THAT at in 1996 at Habitat II Conference every member state made a commitment to move away from car dependency

CONCERNED THAT often labour engaged in non-renewable resource extraction, including the fossil fuel industry and the nuclear industry are reluctant to oppose the continued existence of industrial practices that are harmful to human health and the environment, and that labour would not be so reluctant if there were the implementation of the fair and just transition principle; and that often the call by labour for a fair and just transition to socially equitable and environmentally safe and sound energy is ignored by industry and governments.

It is crucial that nothing prevent governments from taking steps to deal with climate change, this includes intellectual property rights that pose an absurd barrier to the implementation of the UNFCCC

(xiv) Condoning deforestation and destruction of the forests through REDD

OBSERVING THAT the recognition, in UNCED, of the impact of deforestation has not been addressed;

Forests world-wide have been and are being threatened by uncontrolled degradation and conversion to other types of land uses, influenced by increasing human needs, agricultural expansion and environmentally harmful mismanagement, including, for example, lack of adequate forest-fire control and anti-poaching measures, unsustainable commercial logging, overgrazing and… the impacts of loss and degradation of forests are in the form of soil erosion, loss of biological diversity, damage to wildlife habitats and degradation of watershed areas, deterioration of the quality of life and reduction of the options for sustainable development [socially equitable and environmental] development. (11.12. Deforestation, Agenda 21, UNCED, 1992)

FULLLY AWARE THAT (i) unsustainable forest management is the main cause of forest degradation, while the conversion of forests into agricultural land is by far the main cause of deforestation. (ii)The expansion of large-scale agro-industrial monocultures for food, fibre and, increasingly, energy production is both an important direct cause of deforestation and an important underlying cause of forest loss (iii)The expansion of monocultures on existing arable land causes cattle ranching and other forms of agriculture to move towards forest areas and other natural ecosystems.(iv)Biodiversity i.e. Monoculture plantations are usually (not always) exotics therefore replacement (after cutting) creates problems for endemic species (v) Sustainable Livelihoods ARE IGNORED. Indigenous Peoples use their forests for food, shelter, water supply, medicines etc.(vi)Monocultures provide no protection for endemics or livelihoods and the risk from monocultures of indigenous species poses a potential threat to biodiversity (presentation, Sandy Gauntlett Pacific Indigenous Peoples Environment Coalition: Presentation to the Peoples Conference, Cochabamba)

CONDEMNING the flawed REDD programme AND CONCERNED THAT there was a meeting, regarding the REDD programme, in Norway: While REDD is a UN programme under United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), only those states that have taken note or been coerced into taking note of the Copenhagen Accord had been invited to participate in the deliberations in Norway.

CONCERNED ALSO THAT corporations including transnational corporation have been granted concessions in forests in developing states and on Indigenous lands, to log or to plant bio-fuel plantations, which have been in violation of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The REDD program is being used to give carbon credits to transnational corporations to offset years of destructive practices supported or condoned by major industrialised states.

RECALLING THAT in 1996, at Habitat II, all states made a commitment to ensure that all corporations including transnational corporations comply with all international agreements, including international environmental agreements. These agreements would include the UNFCCC and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

(xv) Ignoring the impact of militarism on climate change

ALARMED THAT the IPCC and COP15 have not calculated the impact of militarism on greenhouse gas emissions

RECALLING THAT at the 1992 United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development, all agreed, in Chapter 33 of Agenda 21, to the reallocation of military expenses.

BECOMING more and more aware of the dangers related to climate change, and the potential security implications related to resource conflict, and militarism,

DEEPLY CONCERNED THAT foreign refusal to supply fossil fuel for the consumption of developed states could be deemed to violate “strategic national interest” of developed states and result in military intervention,

DEEPLY CONCERNED THAT in violation of international law, some developed nations, in the pursuit of resources, are flagrantly engaging in war crimes under the guise of “human security”, “humanitarian intervention”, “responsibility to protect” or the “will to intervene”; these guises have been used to justify the policy of “preventive/pre-emptive military strikes which contravenes the ultimate international crime of aggression.

REAFFIRMING THAT warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development” (Rio Declaration, Principle 24, UNCED, 1992), and that there must be rigorous adherence to and enforcement of the [1978] Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD),

REAFFIRMING THAT the commitment made in Chapter 33 of Agenda 21, to reallocate resources presently committed to military purposes, and the importance of implementing this commitment made, and to transfer part of the peace dividend to assist the developing states in the development of socially equitable environmentally safe and sound renewable energy, transportation, agriculture, forestry etc. These resources should be put into a fund for the implementation of the UNFCC.

NOTING THAT in Agenda 21, there was an estimate of the annual cost of implementing all the AGENDA 21 provisions each year, and that a reallocation of the GLOBAL military budget could begin to seriously facilitate implementation of these commitments,

AWARE THAT at the September, 2007 DPI/NGO Conference, the Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was presented with a declaration calling for the IPCC to include a full analysis of the contribution of militarism to greenhouse gas emissions.

AWARE THAT states adopted Principle 24 in the 1992 Rio Declaration, UNCED: this principle affirms that “Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development.” This principle confirms that military actions create a barrier to sustainable development.

(xvi) Defying international Law and Obligations

MINDFUL THAT the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Chamber on Environmental Matters under the ICJ are competent organs to address the failure of states to comply with obligations incurred under the UNFCCC; Also the international Climate Justice Tribunal, under the UNFCCC, proposed by Peoples Conference held in Cochabamba will serve as an important new organ to advance compliance with the UNFCCC

CONCLUDING THAT, in the apparent absence of an international definition of what constitutes criminal negligence, there appears to be common components within national statutes of what constitutes criminal negligence.

Canadian common law provides useful guidance because Canada has a system of law drawn from both the Common Law and the Civil Code systems.

Under Canadian law “Environmental negligence” suits focus on compensation for loss caused by unreasonable conduct that damages legally protected interests. Unreasonable conduct means doing something that a prudent or reasonable person would not do, or failing to do something that a reasonable person would do. The plaintiff must establish certain key elements of the tort— cause in fact and proximate cause, damages, legal duty, and breach of the standard of care. Note that fault may be found even in the case of unintended harm if it stems from unreasonable conduct.

The Criminal Code (Section 219) is even clearer that lack of intent to harm is no defence if damage results from conscious acts performed in careless disregard for others: “Everyone is criminally negligent who (a) in doing anything, or (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons” (where ‘duty’ means a duty imposed by law). Significantly, Section 222(5) (b) states that “a person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being, by being negligent (emphasis added) (Cited by Bill Rees in “is Canada criminally negligent”)

United Kingdom common law also provides similar guidance. Under United Kingdom Law: Criminal Negligence need only show that a person failed to act within the standards of a reasonable man. The WHO have confirmed that there are already large numbers of fatalities and will be many more as a result of the failure to act on climate change prevention. Manslaughter can be defined expressly In terms of negligence, but it must be gross. Additionally all statutory offences do not need to employ the word negligence but often impose liability for negligence. The minimum fault element should be based on the reasonable cause to believe. The AR4 IPCC report provides reasonable cause to believe and this is very significantly accentuated by the recent accepted science that things are actually far worse than stated in AR4. You are not required to prove a state of mind although the accused knowledge of the facts are relevant in determining reasonable cause. The offence is still committed if the accused has made an unreasonable mistake of fact and this is a limit to the defence that a person did not know. The need for a mistake to be reasonable as a defence is actually less relevant than before since the Minor v DPP case in 2000. Parliament requires mistakes to be based on reasonable grounds as well. The Statutes often put the burden of proof on the accused such as within the Trade Description Act

Brazilian, US, Chinese, Spanish, and Indian codes to be reviewed and translated

CONVINCED THAT under the transboundary principle, that has become a peremptory norm, all states have the responsibility, when carrying out activities in their own jurisdiction- water air and land to not impact on other states, not only on adjacent states. It is clear that the activities in the major greenhouse gas emitting states have impacted on other states. States, as signatories of the UNFCCC, have a legal duty to keep greenhouse gas emissions below the dangerous anthropogenic level. It could be argued that by continuing to ignore their responsibility to other states and by not discharging their legal duty to seriously reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the major greenhouse gas emitting states, especially those with high per capita emissions, are guilty of gross negligence and even criminal negligence. Not acting to reduce greenhouse gases demonstrates dereliction of duty and unreasonable conduct because it is an action that a prudent or reasonable person would not do. A person may be considered to be criminally negligent when he/she does something or omits to do anything that it is his/hers duty to do, and shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons

The lack of intent to harm may not constitute a defence if damage results from conscious acts performed in careless disregard for others: The basis of the evaluations should be that “Everyone is criminally negligent who (a) in doing anything, or (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons” (where ‘duty’ means a duty imposed by law).

CONCERNED THAT climate change has not been perceived as a threat to peace and security and security is narrowly defined as military security and does not include environment; the United Nations has not adopted Olaf Palme`s concept of `common security `,which did include environmental security.

DEEPLY CONCERNED THAT climate change poses an environmental threat to peace and security on a scale not yet seen AND THAT there has not yet been a case, related to climate change as a peace and security issue, under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter brought to the International Court of Justice

AWARE THAT under article 5 of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court:

The International Criminal Court shall have jurisdiction limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole and that these include, the crime of genocide, and Crimes against humanity;

DEEPLY CONCERNED THAT international legal instruments such as the Criminal Court have not been made available to all states in an equitable manner because of the condition imposed on persecution and prosecution of state leaders who are deemed to be guilty of crimes against humanity. In order for the criminal court to investigate the state must not have a legitimate legal system. What has resulted is that there is a biased determination of what constitutes a legitimate legal system;

This may be result of the effects of unbalanced power structures within the United Nations.

OPERATIONAL CLAUSES

What must be done in Cancun?

MEMBER STATES ARE URGED TO AFFIRM (AND TO ACT):

I. Committing to substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, conserving sinks and Establishing Pathways and methodologies to achieve cuts

(1)THAT if the obligation in Art 2 of the UNFCCC- stabilization of the greenhouse gas emissions below the dangerous level- is to be discharged emission pathways to eliminate CO2 must arrive at the pre-industrial level of 278 ppm at least by 2050 and that the rise in temperature must remain below 1 °C temperature

Based on current knowledge and current changes happening to practically all ice masses, especially the Arctic, the goal as defined in the UNFCCC as dangerous should be to keep the global temperature below a 1c rise in temperature.

(2) THAT time frames should be imposed to exclude any risk of global climate catastrophe. These timeframes should give sufficient consideration to tipping point effects such as ice sheet melt, forest dieback and Arctic methane carbon and other feedback triggered mechanisms that will cause runaway global heating. This today means nothing less than an all-out global emergency response to reduce global emissions at the greatest possible speed to return to 278 ppm CO2 by at the latest 2050. And that all states must embark immediately on time-bound phasing out of fossil fuel use and of subsidies for fossil fuel, nuclear energy and large scale hydro projects under all forms.

(3) THAT Because of the global urgency, there must be the political will to strive to return earth’s temperature to its pre-industrial level. And strict time frames must be imposed, so that overall global emissions will begin to be reversed as of 2011. There must be a global target for greenhouse gas emission reductions of at least 30% below 1990 levels by 2015, at least 50% below 1990 levels by 2020, at least 75% below 1990 levels by 2030, at least 85% below 1990 levels by 2040 and 100% below 1990 emissions by 2050 (please see table 1 for detailed data calculations) while adhering to the precautionary principle, the differentiated responsibility principle, and the fair and just transition principle. Under the Framework Convention, every state signatory incurred the obligation to conserve carbon sinks; thus the destruction of sinks, including deforestation and elimination of bogs must end immediately. The ultimate goal is to return temperatures to pre-industrial levels and return atmospheric CO2 back to 278ppm at least by 2050.

(4)THAT Baseline research has revealed that only if the CO2 levels are not beyond 278 ppm will the rise in temperature be maintained below 1°C, which has been assessed by many scientists as being the danger level. (5)

(5)THAT to succeed in being below the dangerous 1°c, member states of the United Nations must commit to remove between 1105.62GTCO2 and 1842GT CO2 these proposed numbers are based on initial research and would require further in detail analysis from the atmosphere (see tables 1 and 2). The initial removal phase should start in 2010 and run to 2020, with a research program to determine the required GT GHG to be removed to achieve 278ppm of CO2 by 2050 and socially equitable and environmentally safe and sound methods of CO2 reduction. By the latest in 2020, between 36.85 GT CO2 yr-1 and 61.42 GT CO2 yr-1 must be removed. In the period 2010-2020 natural carbon sinks must be restored.

Conserving Sinks

(6) THAT Destructive land use practices including in the rural, the urban and peri-urban environment must end. Deforestation and all other depletion of sinks must end immediately and developing nations whose development will be affected must be compensated. There must be caps on yearly emissions of GHG as per table 1 and graphs 2 and 3 and as required for the less than 1°C target.

Establishing Pathways and methodologies to achieve cuts

(7)THAT emission reductions should be based on global caps for emissions of GHG and must follow a smooth path as shown in Graphs 1, 2 and 3. Carbon elimination must not be used to offset reduction targets, and must be done through socially equitable and environmentally safe and sound methods.

Advancing methodology to achieve required reductions within timeframes that allow climate change prevention

(8) THAT The emissions reduction required to avoid dangerous climate change and the small timeframes available to achieve this are so extreme that the methods used to achieve the required reductions must be based on the maximum achievable targets within the shortest timeframes as described in diagram .

Please see diagram 1

(9) THAT targets must be set based on current science; research indicates that current science supports the calculation of maximum emissions that have been calculated to be a maximum of 360GT CO2.

ii. Discharging obligations

(10) THAT all member states of the United Nations must discharge the obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate and THAT the objective of the UNFCCC was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and conserve carbon sinks, and that under Article 2, the signatories incurred the following obligation; “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere must be at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

(11) THAT states must respect the emerging and current science which affirms that this dangerous level equates to a temperature below 1°C, which is the point at which global systems on land, water and air will be so affected as to create vicious feedback cycles and destabilise many ecosystems and human societies. For the avoidance of doubt we repeat that this is:

A paper published in Nature (no. 458) on the 30 April 2009 which is the up to date current science on climate change emission thresholds states that in order to have a 8-37% chance of not exceeding 2 Degrees we can only emit 886GT CO2 between 2000 and 2050. Between 2000 and 2010 we have used 363GT CO2 or 41% of the total budget for a high chance of exceeding 2 Degrees. We are currently at 0.78 Degrees above pre-industrial temperatures and possibly committed to at least 0.6 Degrees of further warming (Lenton et al). At 1.5 Degree Lenton et al suggest that forest dieback will emit an additional 100Gt of CO2. Reducing the 886 GT limit to 776GT. An important recent paper by Turney and Jones (Does the Agulhas Current amplify global temperatures during super-interglacials?, Chris S.M. Turney, Richard T. Jones, Journal of Quaternary Science, Volume 25, Issue 6, pages 839–843, September 2010) suggests that at 1.9 Degrees there is a high risk of a rise in sea levels of between 6.6 and 9.4 m and serious disturbance to regional ocean circulations that can amplify warming effects.

Based on these facts it is clear that an agreement must be reached this year.

(12) THAT all states must invoke the precautionary principle that states:

“Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, …” To achieve this, such policies and measures should take into account different socio-economic contexts, be comprehensive, cover all relevant sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and adaptation, and comprise all economic sectors. Efforts to address climate change should be carried out cooperatively by all Parties. (Article 3, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change).

(13) THAT states must  interpret “measures” to involve “prevention” rather than after-act “mitigation” – preventing something from happening and anticipating or developing a clean-up technology. And THAT adaptation – mitigation should not be the foci of climate change negotiations. The foci should be prevention. – preventing not just mitigating and adapting to errors

(14) THAT obligations were incurred in the Framework Convention on Climate Change “to protect the climate system for present and future generations” ;and THAT states must respect the rights of future generations by acting now to prevent the devastating impacts of climate change, which could also threaten international peace and security

(15) THAT with any agreement, only mechanisms which lead to the reductions of all emissions will serve to discharge the obligation under article 2 of the UNFCCC.

(16) THAT the state must implement the principle in article 3.1 of the UNFCCC: The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change

AND THAT signatories of the UN Convention for the Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage incurred an obligation to respect the rights of future generation to their natural and cultural heritage

(17) THAT states must discharged the obligation under Article 3 Principle 2 UNFCCC) to take into consideration

`The specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, and of those Parties, especially developing country Parties, that would have to bear a disproportionate or abnormal burden under the Convention, should be given full consideration.

(18) THAT the obligation, to provide the right to a safe environment, incurred in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, must be discharged,  all states must ratify the Convention and delinquent states must be compelled to comply with this obligation in the Convention AND THAT states must put in place a child advocate to facilitate children’s ability to challenge states regarding their state’s refusal to take action under international and national laws to protect the rights of future generations and to provide a safe environment

(19) THAT states must give children access to legal aid and advocacy services to facilitate children’s ability to challenge states regarding their state’s refusal to take action under international and national laws to protect the rights of these children and future generations and to provide a safe environment. It is important to note that by the age of 18 these children will no longer have the ability to seek remedy for the current breaches of their rights to a healthy and bright future.

(20)THAT to prevent dangerous anthropogenic level of greenhouse gas emissions major greenhouse gas producing states signatories of the UNFCCC must no longer spend time on devising devious strategies to offset their emissions and avoid emissions

Committing to the conserving of carbon sinks

(21) THAT worldwide depletion of carbon sinks must end immediately, deforestation must end, including the logging of old-growth/original forests, which are major carbon sinks; and THAT all global carbon sinks such as peat bogs, the oceans etc. must be rigorously protected as a major priority

III. Declaring of a state of emergency

(22) THAT states must not succumb to entrenched immovable national interests that serve to dismiss the state of emergency and block serious legally binding instruments The actual and anticipated impacts of climate change as well as the unintended consequences of climate change, and the short-term and long-term effects that are known and yet to be known have all contributed to the state of emergency. Any denial of the state of emergency is eclipsed by the moral imperative and legal obligation to abide by the precautionary principle The time for procrastination about climate change has long since passed; the world is in a state of emergency and further inaction is gross if not criminal negligence.

(23) THAT there must be a formal acknowledgement from IPCC scientists submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat that the world is almost beyond dangerous climatic interference and that the world is facing a real and rapidly rising risk of (never ending) global climate catastrophe. A state of dire planetary emergency must be declared and genuine political will must be summoned to address the emergency;

IV Adhering to peremptory norms

(24) THAT states must ratify the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and must adhere to Article 53 and not enter any legally binding agreement that would be in conflict with a peremptory norm (jus cogens) of general international law

(25) THAT states must accept that “Peremptory norm“ are international norms that can be extracted from years of international instruments agreed to by a broad group of states, from widely divergent geographical areas, functioning under a range of legal systems,

(26) THAT states must acknowledge that peremptory norms can be drawn from Conventions, Covenants and Treaties, which have been signed and ratified, and are in force; from Conference Action plans which have been adopted by Consensus, or from UN General Assembly Resolutions and Declaration adopted at the UNGA. And THAT these norms are derived from instruments that guarantee human rights including social and Economic and Cultural rights , civil and political rights, labour rights, women’s’ rights and indigenous rights; that ensure social justice, that protect and conserve the environment, move away from the overconsumptive model of development and reduce the ecological footprint and that prevent war and conflict

(27) AND THAT The Copenhagen Accord will lead to a violation of peremptory norms and as such must be declared null and void

V. Integrating important considerations in the UNFCCC processes

Water

(28) THAT states must include in the UNFCCC processes serious consideration of the vital role of the depletion of water as a both as a contributor to and a consequence of climate change must be included in the discussion on climate change

(29) THAT states must prevent destructive development processes resulting from large dams, river diversions, water installations and irrigation schemes, erosion, sedimentation, deforestation and desertification have led to increased land degradation, and the creation of reservoirs has, in some cases, resulted in adverse effects on ecosystems. Many of these problems have arisen from a development model that is environmentally destructive and from a lack of public awareness and education about surface and groundwater resource protection. Ecological and human health effects are the measurable consequences, although the means to monitor them are inadequate or non-existent in many countries. There is a widespread lack of perception of the linkages between the development, management, use and treatment of water resources and aquatic ecosystems.

(30) THAT states must adopt a preventive approach to avoid irreversibility or costly subsequent measures to rehabilitate, treat and develop new water supplies”

(31) THAT the human right to water must be guaranteed, which would involve the mandatory conservation of water, the prohibition of the privatization of the water supply, and the ending of the depletion of water resources especially those linked to the fossil fuel industries and the spurious climate change solutions such as nuclear and biofuel. And consequently, the UN General Assembly Resolution Recognizing Access to Clean Water, Sanitation as a Human Right must be adopted and implemented by all states

Biodiversity

(32) THAT states must seriously consider the impact of climate change on biodiversity as well as the impact on climate change resulting from loss of biodiversity

(33) THAT In the 2010 International Year of Biodiversity, all member States of the United Nations must sign and ratify the convention on biological diversity and implement the necessary legislation to ensure compliance. All states must end deforestation, preserve forests and protect biodiversity and states must recognize the vital processes in the forests – ones that have taken place over millions of years, upon which Indigenous peoples depend. All states must adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and enact the necessary legislation to ensure compliance. States must seek and respect Indigenous knowledge.

(34) THAT the importance of Traditional Knowledge and practices not been given in developing strategies must be given prominence in the UNFCCC.

Human rights

(35) THAT the UNFCCC processes must integrate considerations about the impact of climate change on human rights including the rights of climate refugees.

“Climate change has many implications for the effective enjoyment of human rights, and for Nations human rights obligations and commitments”. (United Nations Human Rights Council Website October 2010, www2.ohchr.org)

(36)THAT the human rights perspective is indispensable to the ongoing negotiations leading to the year-end Cancun Climate Change Conference As it has been in all the Climate Change Conferences.

Rights of women

(37) THAT States must consider that women, particularly rural and indigenous women will be disproportionately impacted by climate change

Hunger and food security

(38) THAT in the UNFCCC processes the impact of climate change on hunger and food security has not been sufficiently addressed at the UNFCCC negotiations. The longstanding commitment to eradicate hunger is absent.

“Time is short. Urgent and sustained action is vital. The conference, therefore, calls upon all peoples expressing their will as individuals, and through their Governments, and non-governmental organizations to work together to bring about the end of the age old scourge of hunger. (Universal Declaration on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition, 1974)

Land use

(39) THAT the impact of inappropriate and uncontrolled land use on climate change or the impact of false climate change solutions on Land use has not been sufficiently addressed in the UNFCCC negotiations.

“Inappropriate and uncontrolled land uses are a major cause of degradation and depletion of land resources. Present land use often disregards the actual potentials, carrying capacities and limitations of land resources as well as their diversity in space. It is estimated that the world’s population, now at 5.4 billion, will be 6.25 billion by the turn of the century. The need to increase food production to meet the expanding needs of the population will put enormous pressure on all natural resources, including land“ (14.34., Agriculture, Agenda 21, UNCED, 1992)

AND THAT

“Land degradation is the most important environmental problem affecting extensive areas of land in both developed and developing countries. The problem of soil erosion is particularly acute in developing countries, while problems of salinization, water logging, soil pollution and loss of soil fertility are increasing in all countries. (14.44. Agriculture, Agenda 21, UNCED, 1992)

(40) THAT the serious equity, health, and security consequences, especially on the land of indigenous peoples and marginalized communities of large-scale biofuel and large-scale hydroelectric projects, and ecologically and socially unacceptable location of small-scale hydro projects must end

(41) THAT the mitigation and adaptation processes such as monocrop plantations and biofuel that are being proposed under the Kyoto Protocol are producing adverse impacts on indigenous people must end.

Vegetable protein

(42) THAT the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the dependency on animal protein has not been sufficiently addressed in the UNFCCC and IPCC processes. And THAT evidence indicating the substantial contribution, to greenhouse gas emissions such as methane, of reliance on animal protein must be acknowledged, and there must be an international effort to move from animal based protein to vegetable protein.

VI Changing the Commission on Sustainable Development

 (43) THAT that the Commission on Sustainable Development, in light of the failure in negotiations of CSD15 must   produce a negotiated outcome on climate change and other issues, be upgraded to a Council, which would be able to convene at any time to deal with new or emerging environmental threats. This Council should be based outside the US, for example in Switzerland, and governments must send mandated experts to negotiate real solutions to the issues. It should be an umbrella organisation that oversees the sustainability debate monitoring and intervening where and when international negotiations are failing. In terms of climate change this is now a crisis issue requiring intervention. International agreements should be designed within the context of a prevailing philosophy that should be outlined within the context of a CSD umbrella agreement on all the major issues. This document should be the basis of future negotiations at CSD, and should build on UNCED agreements and others pre-WSSD, which was a step backwards;
Additionally the Energy Caucus at CSD must immediately adopt a new policy position based on the targets stated in this petition. The current inactive members of the co-ordinating committee must allow others to take action in an active manor and this work as well as climatechangeCancun.org must be filtered into their mandate. Since COP organisations have failed to take action and have also tried to sideline CSD in terms of climate, the CSD energy Caucus must start to play an active role in the climate change debate and the CSD process, demanding for and taking action to introduce immediate adoptions of the actions, targets and timeframes outlined in this document.

All preparations and decisions to date for Rio +20 must be scrapped and a new agenda set. This must be to set the global human and environmental systems back on track to a sustainable future. With an open agenda dealing with the issues in a holistic fashion that truly attempts to manage the earth in a sustainable way that preserves the environment on which we all depend.

(44) THAT there should be no privileges and immunities for individuals serving on constituted bodies established under the Kyoto Protocol or any other protocols and GO or NGO bodies, in regards to dispensing their duties to society under the law. (Please refer to SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR IMPLEMENTATION, Thirtieth Session, Bonn, 1–10 June, 2009, Thirtieth Session, Item 14 (d) of the provisional agenda);

VII respecting the emerging and current science

IPPC

(45)THAT instead of waiting many years for an agreed document THE IPCC must use a system that is sensitive to the rapid changes in scientific understanding of climate change and not be constrained by the requirement to seek close to scientific certainty

(46) THAT the need for independence in matters of factual science on this crucial issue for humanity is essential. It is thus critical that the IPCC must be independent of national, economic or political vested interests and that an assessment of the independence of members must be carried out, and any member who has been shown to be currently funded by the fossil fuel, military, nuclear, biofuel industry must step down. Members of the IPCC who do not base their analysis on planetary science and facts must be deemed to be negligent and in dereliction of duty and subject to legal recourse;

(47) THAT the mandate of the IPCC must change and IPCC scientists must be permitted to fully acknowledge the urgency and be able to prescribe solutions and proscribe spurious solutions;

(48) THAT there must be a formal acknowledgement from IPCC scientists submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat that the world is beyond dangerous climate interference facing a real and rapidly rising risk of (never ending) global climate catastrophe which is a state of dire planetary emergency – this is required to generate genuine political will to act to address the emergency;

(49) THAT scientists, involved with climate change, must move away from the current tendency to be constrained by the political barriers that have delineated the criteria for their research, and return to advocating solutions based on the climate science. That would require agreement that the rise in temperature must remain below 1 °C temperature- the dangerous level- and that targets and time frames must follow the pathway to eliminate CO2 by arriving at the pre-industrial level of 278 ppm at least by 2050 and

(50) THAT the issue of tipping points be considered integrally within any future agreement and IPCC Reports. The thresholds that are likely to result in steep changes of level of impacts once triggered must be addressed. This includes those relating to Amazonian forest dieback, ice melt, El Nino and Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation. Please see flow diagram 1. The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios must include feedback effects.

(51) THAT not only the states must adhere to the precautionary principle but also the IPCC scientists must adhere to the principle and must ensure that the percentage of concurrence is not so high that it almost reflects scientific certainty

(52) THAT ‘after the fact mitigation” of and “adaptation” to climate change should not be used to justify inaction in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and in conserving of carbon sinks and in undermining the resolve to prevent the dangerous anthropogenic level of interference with the climate

(53) THAT there must be a formal acknowledgement, submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat, from a group of climate scientists that the world is beyond dangerous climate interference and that the world is facing a real and rapidly rising risk of (never ending) global climate catastrophe- a state of dire planetary emergency. This acknowledgement will hopefully serve to finally move the political will to act.

(54) THAT the mandate of the IPCC must change and IPCC scientists must be permitted to fully acknowledge the urgency and be able not only to prescribe solutions and projects that are integrated into the local ecosystems, working within the structure of the natural environment but also to proscribe actions that could be socially inequitable and environmentally unsound;

VIII Discontinuing the UNFCCC negotiating processes which impede change

(55) THAT rather than descending to the lowest common denominator in assessing climate targets in all international negotiating arenas, the strongest percentage emission reduction and targets required to discharge the obligation article 2 of the UNFCCC must be agreed to in Cancun AND THAT at cop16 deliberations must be based on the current and emerging science

(56) THAT the  entrenched immovable national interests that serve to block serious legally binding instruments in Cancun; must be prevented from blocking the adoption, in the General Assembly, of a strong legally binding agreement on climate change. Article 18 of the Charter of the United Nations reads: “Decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. These questions shall include recommendations with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security.” Undoubtedly, the impact of climate change could be deemed to fall under this category. In Cancun, given the urgency of the issue of climate change, and its potential effects on the global population and on the political, economic, ecological and social global systems, the requirement for consensus must be waived, and a binding agreement on all states will be deemed to exist, if 66 % of the states concur. It is possible that a majority of the member states could agree to a strong legally binding “Cancun protocol” to the UNFCCC. A strong Protocol to the UNFCCC could then be used against the delinquent states, and a case could be taken to the International Court of Justice under the UNFCCC, which has been signed and ratified by 192 states. Even most of the delinquent states including Canada and the US, have signed and ratified the UNFCCC. If not 66%, then the proposal made by Papua New Guinea at COP 15 should be in place in Cancun; the proposal was that the state parties to the Convention should strive for consensus with a fall back on 75%. It should be noted that the UNFCCC was adopted by 150 of the then188 members of the United Nations (79%) and that under article 2 of the Montreal Protocol, Parties can if all efforts at consensus have been exhausted, and no agreement reached, adopt decisions by a two-thirds majority.

(57) THAT the practice of anglocentricity at the United Nations must end, and full translation in the six official languages must be provided, not only in the plenary but also in all working and negotiating groups. In the working groups and in the plenary, the disproportion of interventions and domination by the umbrella Developed groups must no longer be permitted.

Revisiting NGO Accreditation and private sector accreditation NGOs

(58) THAT the influence of transnational corporations on the UNCCC processes, as well as on international NGOs raises serious concerns.

(59) THAT the current trend for public/private partnerships in United Nations sustainable development policy be reversed since it inherently compromises participants and for these funds to be channelled into their appropriate international arenas. In terms of energy directed to The Fund for the Implementation of the UNFCCC.

(60) THAT if governmental and non-governmental organizations fail to advocate bold and adequate action and if they undermine efforts of states to address the issue of climate change they should face the appropriate charges under national and internal law;

(61) THAT Charters and licences of Transnational corporations which violate international laws related to guaranteeing human rights, ensuring social justice, preventing war and conflict , protecting and conserving the environment, and increasing the ecological footprint.

Must be revoked.

(62) THAT NGOs must disclose their source of funding and if NGOs are funded by corporations or foundations which might put them in a conflict of interest they must recuse themselves from the process

(63) THAT All NGOS, including industry front group participating at the UN Conferences, including COP 16 in Cancun must reveal any sources of funding, such as that of corporate funding, or any board members that might jeopardise the willingness of the NGOS to take strong positions or that might seriously place the NGOs in conflict of interest

IX Moving from the overconsumptive pattern of development Embracing a different lifestyle and fostering conservation

Moving from overconsumption pattern of development

(64) THAT all states must act on the commitment to move away from the overconsumptive model of development

(65) THAT to achieve socially equitable and environmentally-sound and a higher quality of life for all people, Governments should reduce and shall eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption …. (3.9., International Conference on Population and Development, 1994)

(66)THAT states must act on the years of commitments to conserve resources including energy forests, water, soil, biodiversity

(67) THAT not only states but also individual citizens must move towards and embrace a Conserver society

Fostering conservation

(68) THAT States and citizens around the world must conserve resources

(69) THAT states should collaborate on the proper conservation of natural resources which might be utilized, for food production

(70) THAT there must be conservation and the legitimate utilization of natural resources and all sources of energy

(71) THAT States must fully recognize the urgency of maintaining the stability and quality of nature and of conserving natural resources and preserving nature

(72) THAT states must conserve the living resource in the sea and coastal States, taking into account the best scientific evidence available to it, must ensure through proper conservation and management measures that the maintenance of the living resources in the exclusive economic zone is not endangered by over-exploitation.

X Addressing the plight of the most vulnerable

(73) THAT Developed countries have an environmental debt to the world since they are responsible for 70% of historical carbon emissions into the atmosphere since 1750.

(74) THAT all states must act on the fact that the poorest states have been disproportionately affected by climate change and that the major emitting states owe a substantial climate to the developing states.

(75) THAT emissions budgets should use a context of the carbon footprint of a nation and THAT all emissions should be linked to the country where the goods or services are used. Exporter manufacturing imports and overseas based business enterprises should all be linked to the originator countries’ greenhouse gas emissions.

(76) THAT states must move towards an international economy based on equity, sovereign equality, interdependence, common interest and co-operation among all States, irrespective of their economic and social systems which shall correct inequalities and redress existing injustices, make it possible to eliminate the widening gap between the developed and the developing countries and ensure steadily accelerating economic and social development and peace and justice for present and future generation

(77) THAT active assistance to developing countries by the whole international community, must be free of any political or military conditions

(78) THAT states must abide by principle 14 of the Rio Declaration

States should effectively cooperate to discourage or prevent the relocation and transfer to other States of any activities and substances that cause severe environmental degradation or are found to be harmful to human health. (Principle 14 Rio Declaration, 1992)

(79) THAT States shall take measures to extend the benefits of science and technology to all strata of the population and to both men and women and to protect them, both socially and materially, from possible harmful effects of the misuse of scientific and technological developments… and States must provide socially equitable and environmentally sound technology. AND THAT Intellectual Property Rights must not impede the transfer of socially equitable and environmentally sound technology and there is need for action on the part of members negotiating at the UNFCCC to agree to measures that overcome the IP barriers and facilitate transfer of technology as well as associated skills and know-how.

(80) THAT the major greenhouse gas emitting states must compensate developing states for having inequitably occupied the atmospheric space of developing states; this occupation of atmospheric space arises as a result of many of the fossil fuel industries function in developing states primarily to benefit not the developing states but the developed ones.

(81) THAT industrialized states must no longer use the so-called principle of extra territorialism – that is what right to developed states have to impose their higher standards on developing states.

(82) THAT The transition to a zero carbon society should meet the needs of all nations and people in an equitable fashion and should be based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, human rights and social justice. (Principle 7 Rio Declaration)

XI Releasing and providing new and different sources of funding;

(83) THAT the industrialized states and major greenhouse gas producers must be prepared to enter into binding obligations not only through targets and time frames but also through funding mechanisms. This fund could be named Fund for the Implementation of the UNFCCC, and it would fund socially equitable and environmentally safe and sound energy renewable energy, transportation, agriculture and forestry. This fund would replace the GEF as the main source of funding for the UNFCCC.

(84) THAT the dominant greenhouse gas-producing and emitting states should be compelled to finance this international fund. Funds traditionally distributed not only through the GEF but also through the Bretton Woods institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and additional bilateral funds, such as those in the German Fund for International Climate Initiative, should be channelled through this global fund. This fund would be indispensable for preventing climate change, and for achieving the objectives of the UNFCCC.

(85) THAT additional funds must be derived from reallocation of global military expenses, including budgets and arms production and sales. Part of this fund could be allocated to compensate states damaged in any way by the failure of industrialized states to discharge obligations under the UNFCCC and other legal obligations.

(86) THAT other budgetary sources for this Fund would be the redirecting of subsidies from socially inequitable and environmentally unsound non-sustainable energy to socially equitable and environmentally safe and sound renewable energy, transportation, agriculture, forestry etc.

(87) THAT in addition, measures to alleviate the impacts of climate change must include the cancellation of the outstanding debt of developing states, and the implementation of the minimal long-standing commitment of 0.7% of GDP being transferred to Overseas Development (ODA). The 0.7% obligation for development must not be diverted to climate change; there must be an additional obligation of more than 7% of GDP specifically designated for addressing, through socially equitable and environmentally sound practices, the climate debt and obligation owed to humanity, the poor the vulnerable and the disenfranchised.  The ODA must serve the needs not of the developed states but of the developing states. Any shortfall in funding should be bolstered by increased ODA by nations that inequitably have gained an advantage from historical emissions or reduction scenarios that are not in line with the principle of equity.

(88) THAT all these funding measures could only just begin to compensate for the “emissions debt” owed, by the developed states to the developing states.

The impact, of climate change on the world’s poor, on indigenous peoples, vulnerable communities, and especially low-lying states will be the greatest, and they must be assisted by Industrial states, which have incurred a legal and moral obligation, to provide funds for socially equitable and renewable energy, transportation, agriculture, forestry etc.

(89) THAT in addition, major greenhouse gas-producing states must be forced to implement the actions that would discharge the obligations incurred when they signed and ratified the UNFCCC (provisions of the UNFCCC have become international peremptory norms and as such are binding) and be forced to repay the emission debt. Historic emissions should be calculated and an assessment made of the degree of dereliction of duty in the implementation of the UNFCCC. From these assessments, provisions must be made to compensate the states that have been most damaged by the failure, of the major greenhouse gas emitting states, to discharge obligations under the Convention. In such cases, a fund should be set up to assist vulnerable states in taking delinquent states to the International Court of Justice, including the Chamber on Environmental Matters   (http://www.icjcij.org/presscom/index.php?pr=106&p1=6&p2=1&search=%22%22Composition+of+the+Chamber+for+Environmental+Matters

(90) THAT a Fund for the Implementation of the UNFCCC be established and financed by funds as suggested in this submission.

(91) THAT this fund would take a holistic and scientific approach to tackling climate change. It would have as its core an ideology of participatory planning, by local people, of locally adapted projects within an overarching framework of principles to undergird the implementation of the UNFCCC legal obligations “to protect the climate system for present and future generations”. The fund would also have as a final objective to stabilize emissions, within mandatory time frames. To prevent dangerous anthropogenic interferences, while most importantly to protect the world’s poor and the global ecosystem. The Fund will be governed not by market demands but by scientific facts which will dictate what needs to be done to achieve the implementation of these objectives;

(92) THAT funds must be redirected nationally from the subsidising of unsustainable practices, to supporting conservation and subsidising socially equitable environmentally safe and sound renewable energy, transportation, agriculture, forestry etc.;

(93) THAT funds from the subsidising of  unsustainable energy generation practices, must be redirected internationally to the fund for the implementation of the UNFCCC for the purpose of assisting in the conservation of energy, and of subsidising socially equitable environmentally safe and sound renewable energy, transportation, agriculture, forestry etc.;

(94) THAT the Global Environmental Facility funding should be transferred into the proposed fund for the Implementation of the UNFCCC, whose purpose is to fund socially equitable and environmentally safe and sound renewable energy; this fund would never be used to fund nuclear, biofuels or crop (genetic) engineering, or large corporate hydro projects. The UNFCCC fund with the ultimate aims of the UNFCCC in mind would not base its philosophy on the markets but on planetary science and social needs of current and future generations;

(95) THAT funds from the IMF, World Bank, including the World Bank Climate Investment Fund, and FROM all bilateral and multilateral funds for climate change such as the German Fund for International Climate Initiative should be transferred into the proposed fund for implementation of the UNFCC, Fund, whose purpose is to fund socially equitable and environmentally safe and sound renewable energy; this fund would never be used to fund nuclear, biofuels or crop (genetic) engineering, or large scale corporate hydro projects;

(96) THAT the dominant greenhouse gas-producing states should be compelled to finance The Fund for the Implementation of the UNFCCC. This international fund should be used for socially equitable environmentally safe and sound renewable energy, transportation, agriculture, forestry etc. and for supporting energy conservation and projects in low-income areas of developing countries and economies in transition;

(97) THAT developed nations must act on the long-standing commitment to transfer 0.7% of GDP to Overseas Development. IN Addition, (ODA) funds should go to the Fund for the Implementation of the UNFCCC. The 0.7% obligation for development must not be diverted to climate change; there must be an additional obligation of 7% of GDP specifically designated for addressing climate debt. Any shortfall in funding for implementation of the UNFCC should be bolstered by increased ODA by developed nations;

(98) THAT Overseas Development Aid (ODA) must not be linked to political motivations BUT based on the need for a sustainable and equitable world.

(99) THAT to alleviate the impacts of targets and time frames on developing nations the outstanding debts of developing states must be cancelled immediately;

(100) THAT Developed countries should pay off their debt through payments to the Fund for the Implementation of the UNFCCC;

(101) THAT Military expenses must be reallocated. This reallocation could release over $750/€507 billion per annum. These funds will be transferred to establish a fund for sustainable development, most importantly part of the resources should be directed to The Fund for the Implementation of the UNFCCC that will fund socially equitable and environmentally safe and sound renewable energy, transportation, agriculture, forestry etc.

(102) THAT funds for ODA should not be administered by World Bank or World Bank-type organisations; instead these should be managed by independently-minded bodies whose sole aim is to succeed in implementing a sustainable and equitable world social system. The basis of aid should be properly evaluated and be socially equitable and environmentally safe and sound, and be sustainability-need based;

(103) THAT the polluter pay principle must be enforced against dominant greenhouse gas-producing states and their “overseas” operations (military and corporate) and that charters and licences of transnational corporations that have contributed to greenhouse gas emissions, must be revoked to prevent further pollution. This principle should be retrospective. The polluter pays principle is one of the most significant environmental legal instruments used in developed countries, on that basis these countries cannot hide from the implementation of this same principle in their relations with the developing world.

Xii Abandoning false solutions and spurious subsidies

(104) THAT all states must embark immediately on time-bound phasing out of fossil fuels and of subsidies for fossil fuel. The unconventional extraction of oil from Bitumen, such as in the process in the tar/oil sands, is a major contribution to greenhouse gas and must be prohibited, and dangerous deep drilling in the oceans prohibited. In addition there must be an immediate end to subsidies for and an eventual phase-out of both (i) biofuel, which has resulted in seriously impacting food security, and (II) nuclear energy, which is too dangerous to be deemed a solution to climate change and an end to the subsidizing of biofuel and of nuclear energy, instead there must be a time-bound commitment to conservation, and to subsidizing and investing in socially equitable and environmentally safe and sound renewable energy, transportation, agriculture, forestry etc. options, that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

(105) THAT because of the serious health and environmental consequences, the use of genetically engineering technology, and biofuels, must be banned.

(106) THAT in some of the poorest regions agricultural land that should be used for local food production must not be used for biofuels or any other bio-resource to offset emissions from the developed world

(107) THAT the Anchorage Declaration that calls upon the Parties to the UNFCCC to recognize the importance of Traditional Knowledge and practices shared by Indigenous Peoples in developing strategies to address climate change must be respected and implemented

(108) THAT “market based” or “market centre approaches, which are being proposed by developed states must be opposed because they will not serve the needs of developing states. (Third World Network, 2009);

(109) THAT the advocating of nuclear energy, along with large-scale hydro, biofuel, carbon capture as a solution to climate change must be condemned – no proposed course of action should either continue or exacerbate serious environmental or health problems, and/or contribute to global destabilization by undermining disarmament;

(110) THAT nuclear energy is not a solution to climate change because, although promulgated by proponents, as “safe, clean, and cheap”, there is clear and valid scientific evidence of its inherent dangers: lack of safety (emissions into both air and ground water), security-linked issues, unresolved (and likely irresolvable) waste disposal problems.

(111) THAT states must not install large hydroelectric dams. And THAT states must not use large dams to generate energy for continuing to produce fossil fuels

(112) THAT states must dismantle the International Trade agreements, such as GATT, and the subsequent WTO, along with the regional trade agreements, that have undermined international resolve to seriously address unsustainable practices, AND THAT states must enforce regulations that would socially equitable environmentally safe and sound renewable energy, transportation, agriculture, forestry etc.

Xiii Committing to instituting support for socially equitable and environmentally safe and sound renewable energy, transportation, agriculture, forestry etc.

(113)THAT any agreement must only seek to implement energy sources which can realistically be considered new, renewable and clean energy sources. These are solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, wind, hydro, ….geothermal, ocean, animal and human power, as referred to in the reports of the Committee on the Development and Utilization of New and Renewable Sources of Energy, prepared specifically for the Conference 2? (See A/CONF.151/PC/119 and A/AC.218/1992/5).

(114) THAT the Fair and Just transition principle must be instituted to assist workers and communities in the transition from unsustainable to sustainable development. This principle holds that workers who are engaged in unsustainable practices that are harmful to human health and the environment, will not oppose the transition to socially equitable and environmentally safe and sound practices (SEESS), providing society offers them a fair and just transition to (SEESS).

(115) THAT all states must embark immediately on time-bound phasing out of subsidies for fossil fuel, for biofuel, for nuclear energy and other non-sustainable energy sources, and a time-bound commitment to conservation, and to subsidizing and investing in socially equitable and environmentally safe and sound renewable energy, transportation, agriculture, forestry etc. options, that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These funds should flow into and out of the Fund for the Implementation of the UNFCCC. AND THAT The United Nations should establish by the end of 2010 transparent mechanisms to ensure the disclosure of detailed and accurate national GHG emissions data, including data related of greenhouse gas emissions from military activities. This data should be collected by independent UN appointed scientists, who should determine whether full disclosure has taken place. Where there has not been full disclosure then enforcement mechanism should be in place.

(116) THAT governments and international organizations must adopt at the national level, policies leading to timetables for progressively disclosing and phasing out the energy subsidies that inhibit sustainable development. And to establish by the end of 2010 transparent mechanisms within the United Nations system to receive and publicize annual reports from all governments and intergovernmental bodies, that would detail:
a.  data on all energy-related governmental and intergovernmental subsidies, and
b. data on the phasing out of harmful subsidies to reflect their environmental impacts; and calls upon governments at the national level to establish transparent national mechanisms for collecting and reporting data on energy-related subsidies provided by all levels of government in that country;

c. Data related to national greenhouse gas emissions including data related to greenhouse gas emissions from military activities must be disclosed, by 2010 and assessed by the United Nations. This data should be collected by independent UN appointed scientists, who should determine whether full disclosure has taken place. Where full transparency and disclosure have not occurred, enforcement mechanisms must be invoked.

(117) THAT states should reveal the disproportionate tax ‘relief’ given to major greenhouse gas producers, and exorbitant tax deferrals that have benefitted the major greenhouse gas emitting states

(118) THAT the member states should institute a fair and just transition program for workers and communities affected by the sunsetting of fossil fuel, biofuel and nuclear industries. This program would involve re-training and compensation for workers;

(119) THAT there is need for action on the part of members negotiating at the UNFCCC to agree to measures that overcome the International Intellectual property barriers and facilitate transfer of technology as well as associated skills and know-how; AND nothing should prevent governments from taking steps to deal with climate change, this includes intellectual property rights that pose an unconscionable barrier to the implementation of the UNFCCC;

Intellectual property

(120) THAT all members of society and institutions must be called upon to invest in socially equitable and environmentally safe and sound renewable energy, transportation, agriculture, forestry etc. that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And that the concept of ‘due diligence’ has to be reversed so that rather than financial managers, of pensions and other funds, being deemed guilty for not exercising due diligence if they invest in socially equitable and environmentally safe and sound renewable energy and transportation and transportation, the financial managers will in the future be guilty of failure to exercise due diligence if they invest funds in the fossil fuel, nuclear, biofuel, and large hydro industries; AND there could be a new global transport system; in this system the use of roads for cars for individuals would be phased out, the roads would be replaced by natural habitats and much smaller surface areas used for communal transport mechanisms as far as is possible, these would be able to cater for all human needs . This would create a major carbon sink, considerably increase quality of life, protect biodiversity, increase the spread of transport from A to B and create major cost and efficiency benefits for nations and business, as well as having a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally the recent breakthroughs in the use of solar flights must be built upon; the need to travel by air is counterbalanced by the need to preserve our climate. For long distance and over water transport systems sustainable clean renewable energy must be developed. This will require a dramatic move away from air transport to other methods of transportation.

XIV Instituting policies that prevent deforestation and destruction to replace the flawed REDD

(121) THAT Policy proposals to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries must be analysed within the framework of the equity dimension of the climate regime in general

(122) THAT the large-scale agro-industrial monocultures for food, fibre and, increasingly, energy production that cause forest loss and deforestation must end

(123) THAT the exotic species must not replace endemic species

(124) THAT the Convention on Biological Diversity must be ratified by all states and provisions for enforcement implemented

(125)THAT Sustainable Livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples who use their forests for food, shelter, water supply, medicines etc. must be protected

(126) THAT In addition spurious arguments that, in the name of climate change, attempt to legitimize the replacement of old-growth forests by advancing the argument that there is a point where and when old-growth forests are no longer efficient sinks and that they should be replaced with fast-growing young trees must end.

(127) THAT the REDD program is flawed and must be abandoned.  All developed states, in which the transnationals are registered, must be required to revoke the charters of the aforementioned transnational corporations for contributing to the violation of state obligations under the Biodiversity Convention, and for the destructions of forests; if developed states fail to do this, developing states must be urged to expropriate these transnational corporations for violation of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Furthermore, the UN fund should be used to give money to the state to conserve forests and for Indigenous and local peoples for their use, and for local communities to use for socially equitable and environmentally sound development.

(128) THAT the flawed REDD must be abandoned,

XV Acknowledging and addressing the impact of militarism on climate change

(129) THAT the long standing commitment to transfer the peace dividend to developing countries must be respected

In 1976 at Habitat 1, a UN conference in Vancouver member states of the United Nations affirmed the following in relation to the military budgets and armaments:

“The waste and misuse of resources in war and armaments should be prevented. All countries should make a firm commitment to promote general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, in particular in the field of nuclear disarmament. Part of the resources thus released should be utilized so as to achieve a better quality of life for humanity and particularly for the peoples of developing countries” (II, 12 Habitat 1).

(130) THAT Overseas Development Aid (ODA) must not be linked to military purchases, or to the acceptance of socially inequitable and environmentally unsound practices or technologies, and THAT foreign military bases, which in addition to all the other reasons for closure, they are major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions; they must be converted to peaceful purposes ;

(131) THAT the following is drawn from the Declaration that was prepared by members of the Peace Caucus and the Anti-militarisation Caucus at the DPI-NGO 2007 Conference on Climate Change: ?
?
- the member states of the United Nations must act on the commitment in Chapter 33 of Agenda 21, to reallocate military expenses. ?
?
- States must implement the commitment made in Agenda 21 to “the reallocation of resources committed to military purposes” (33.18), and to transfer the peace dividend to seriously address the urgent issue of climate change and other serious sustainable development issues

- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change must investigate and estimate the full impact on greenhouse gas emissions by the military and demand that each state release information related to the greenhouse gas emissions from the production of all weapon systems, military exercises, from war games, weapons testing, military aviation, environmental warfare, troop transfer, military operations, waste generation, and reconstruction after acts of violent interventions etc.

- NATO, whose collective activities have contributed to not only the perpetuation of the scourge of war and the violation of international peremptory norms, but also the substantial release of greenhouse gas emissions, must be disbanded.

- The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) must discontinue its promotion of nuclear energy – the most hazardous and expensive form of energy known – as the solution to climate change

(132) THAT the agreement, of silence, between WHO and IAEA must end, and the World Health Organization (WHO) must acknowledge and address the short and long-term impacts on health of nuclear power generation.

Xvi Launching legal challenges under all other applicable law

Including a possible charge of criminal negligence

(133) THAT there exist an opportunity in Cancun to  be replace “the take note“  Copenhagen Accord with a legally binding Cancun Protocol based on credible emerging scientific and institutional data and on the principle of differentiated responsibility and not on the vested economic interests of the fossil fuel emitting corporate states .

(134) THAT the process of coercing reluctant states to adopt the Copenhagen Accord must end; the Copenhagen Accord which ignored not only the pleas from the most vulnerable states but also the emerging science and fundamental peremptory norms must be deemed null and void, under Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties.

(135) THAT there must be provisions for states to launch cases in the ICJ or in the Chamber on Environmental Matters within the ICJ against the egregious greenhouse gas-producing states that are signatories of the UN Convention on Climate Change, and its Kyoto Protocol;

(136) THAT the transboundary principle must be extended and applied to failure to take seriously the responsibility to not harm other states though the greenhouse gas emissions

(137) THAT delinquent states must be taken to the ICJ or the Chamber on Environmental Matters of the International Court of Justice (http://www.icjcij.org/presscom/index.php?pr=106&p1=6&p2=1&search=%22%22Composition+of+the+Chamber+for+Environmental+Matters

the Chamber on Environmental Matters of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)which was set up to address the failure of states to comply with obligations incurred under the Environmental agreements such as UNFCC UNFCCC;

(138) THAT there should be an advisory opinion sought from the ICJ on what constitutes criminal negligence and on whether the failure of many developed states to discharge their obligations under the unfccc constitutes criminal NEGLIGENCE. National and international courts should evaluate cause in fact and proximate cause, damages, legal duty, and breach of the standard of care for not acting on the risks of climate change. Fault may be found even in the case of unintended harm if it stems from unreasonable conduct. The lack of intent to harm may not constitute a defence if damage results from conscious acts performed in careless disregard for others: The basis of the evaluations should be that “Everyone is criminally negligent who (a) in doing anything, or (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons” (where ‘duty’ means a duty imposed by law). In Canadian law, significantly, states that “a person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being, by being negligent (emphasis added).” (Cited by Bill Rees in “is Canada criminally negligent”)

(139) THAT major greenhouse gas-producing states be forced to implement the actions that would discharge the obligations incurred when they signed and ratified the UNFCCC. In addition, historic emissions should be calculated and an assessment made of the degree of dereliction of duty in the implementation of the UNFCC. From these assessments, provisions must be made to compensate the states that have been most damaged by the failure to discharge obligations under the Convention (the climate debt). In such cases, a fund should be set up to assist vulnerable states in taking delinquent states to the International Court of Justice. These resources should be put into a fund for the Implementation of the UNFCCC; and the proposal in the peoples Agreement from Cochabamba of setting up of an international Tribunal to process delinquent states must be provided for under the auspices of the UNFCCC.

(140) THAT the UN General Assembly must invoke article 22 ,of the Charter of the United Nations, and set up an international tribunal to investigate the states that continue to engage in practices which will cause the global community to reach the dangerous anthropogenic level of interference with the climate change

(141) THAT the International Criminal Court should be able to extend its jurisdiction to cover crimes against humanity resulting from irreversible consequences of climate change

142) THAT there should be set up an International Court of Compliance linked to the International Court of Justice, where citizens could take evidence of state and corporate non-compliance. And the proposal in the peoples Agreement from Cochabamba of setting up of an international Tribunal to process delinquent states must be provided for under the auspices of the UNFCCC.

(143) THAT the follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol or any other policy agreement/legal instrument directed towards reducing climate change related emissions should move towards an equitable international system that protects not prejudices the world’s poor or politically disadvantaged men, women and children at risk;

AT THE 2010 CANCUN CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE, THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY MUST BE BOLD AND MOVE BEYOND NATIONAL STATE AND CORPORATE VESTED INTERESTS TO PROVIDE A STRONG LEGALLY BINDING CANCUN PROTOCOL

COMMENT ON COP16 [SEE BELOW SUBMISSION TO CANCUN]

At COP15 2010, on December 17th and 18th, presentations were made, by the heads of states, to the Plenary. The majority of heads of states were calling for the global community to maintain the rise in temperature to well below 1.5 degrees. Bolivia led the way by demanding that the rise in temperature must remain below 1 degree and the ppm must return to 300ppm. Tragically, it was clear at COP15 that the majority of states were ignored. It should be noted that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted in 1992 by 79 % of the member States of the United Nations

On December 7th, Papua New Guinea had proposed that, rather than descend to the lowest common denominator, the parties should strive for consensus with a fall back of 75%. Unfortunately, this proposal was summarily dismissed by the Chair. This proposal should now be accepted and implemented at Cancun.
If one counts the G77 representing 130 developing states along with some low -lying states or small island states which were not members of the G77 and, with some of the member states of the European Union, then possibly over 75% of the signatories of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) would have been prepared to sign and ratify a strong, legally binding agreement. It could be argued, on the one hand, that such an agreement would have been irrelevant because the major greenhouse gas producers would not have signed on.

On the other hand, citizens in the major greenhouse gas producing states could have used a new legally binding agreement to force governments to cut emissions In addition, the states, signatories of the new protocol, could have forced the delinquent states to comply either through the Chamber on Environmental Matters of International Court of Justice, or through an International Climate Justice Tribunal as proposed in the Peoples Agreement ,set up specifically under the UNFCCC to address the failure to comply with international obligations under the UNFCCC. In Cancun, COP16, must respect the law and the demands contained in the April 22, 2010 People’s Agreement negotiated in Cochabamba Bolivia and endorsed by acclamation by 35,000 participants from wide international range of institution and citizens.


At COP15, The dominant developed states ignored not only the developing states but also the emerging science and institutional reports and calls for the IPCC and COP 15 to assess the contribution by militarism to greenhouse gas emissions.

At COP15, There were important press Conferences on significant emerging data from international scientific bodies and institutions. The emerging science indicated that the global climate crisis was much more urgent than what was conveyed in the 2007 IPCC Report that was based on data from the years 2004 and 2005. In addition, it appears that the 2007 IPCC Report worked within projections of a 90 percent confidence level which comes close to requiring full scientific certainty; this practice was in violation of the precautionary principle. If the IPCC had explicitly considered the risks of higher temperatures, threat outside the boundary of a 90 percent confidence level dynamical melting of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets, and non-linear responses to drivers of climate change would have enabled States to have far more clarity in regards to the dire urgency of the climate crisis emergency. At a COP15 press conference, a scientist on the panel stated that at a 2 degree rise above pre-industrial levels , the poor, the disenfranchised and the vulnerable would not survive, and at a1.5 degrees rise, they might survive. Reports from the WMO indicated that the temperature was rising faster,and that climate-related incidents were more intense and more wide-spread than previously estimated, and that drought was advancing more extensively than previously anticipated. . At COP15,as well, at press conferences reports were released (i) from the UN High Commission on Refugees; their report indicated that climate-change related refugees had increased. And (ii) from the WHO that reported on the failure in the negotiations to consider the health impacts of climate change as well as the health benefits and savings from seriously reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

**At COP 15, there were also calls to include, in the negotiations, the consideration of the impact on water resources and the contribution to climate change of the unsustainable use of water.

At COP 15 the call for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to rectify the fact that militarism ¬ a major contributor to greenhouse emissions has been excluded from the IPCC deliberations was also ignored .

The dominant Greenhouse gas producing states ignored all the emerging data and appeals and proceeded to negotiate in secret, the Copenhagen Accord was decried by most as being out of sync with the actions necessary to address the emergency. Concerned that there are entrenched immovable national interests that will serve to block serious binding instruments in Cancun

In Cancun, rather than descending to the lowest common denominator approach to setting climate targets and time frames, member states of the United Nations should have acknowledged the emerging science of dwindling glaciers, increasing atmospheric turbulence, desertification, ocean warming and acidification and rising sea levels, and institutional advice and adopt strong, effective, and mandatory targets and time frames to address the urgency.

In Cancun, the flawed Copenhagen Accord with the 2 degrees target had been on the table from the beginning. Even Molino, claimed incorrectly that over 100 states at COP15 had supported 2 degrees. When I pointed out to him that at Copenhagen that probably over 130 states had supported 1.5 degrees or less, and asked him, if as a scientist he would not advocate much less, he responded that the US would never agree to less than 2 degrees. I responded is that what science has become - that which the US would agree to!


 

 

 

 

 

Latest News