Something amazing is happening in American politics. Wow it felt good, and weird, to type that sentence. Not sure if you noticed, but it’s been kind of a hellish shitshow recently.

Anyway… On Tuesday 13th November 2018, a group of young climate activists descended on the office of Nancy Pelosi, expected to lead the Democrats in the US Congress. They were demanding that she set up a special committee to create a proper climate action plan for the country – a Green New Deal.

They were joined by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a new rising star in the Democrats – more on her later – who hasn’t even officially taken her seat yet, but who dropped in to show her support of this demand on her new boss.

There’s a lot to unpack here, and we’re going to dive in to the details. But first I just want to give a shout out to David Roberts, one of my favourite climate journos, who wrote this fantastic piece about this. I am going to be drawing on his article quite a bit for the first few sections of this post. You should totally read it too.

A Green New Deal – what now?

These young climate activists and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are calling for something called a Green New Deal – a vast policy package with the aim to address climate change by decarbonising the US economy while addressing economic injustice, creating good jobs, investing in much-needed infrastructure and public services. Read this to see for yourself how eye-poppingly ambitious it is. We’re talking 100% renewable power and a slew of other goals.

The idea of a Green New Deal has been kicking around in environmental circles for years, and has long been championed by the US Green Party. But in just the last week, this is by far the most mainstream attention I have ever seen this idea get. It’s been discussed or at least mentioned on TV channels from Fox News to Russia Today, it’s been in many of the major national newspapers. As far as I know, this level of attention is unprecedented.

As the name suggests, the idea draws on the New Deal that President Roosevelt used to deal with the Great Depression. It’s basic Keynesian economics – essentially when the economy isn’t doing well, the government can fix it by spending a hell of a lot of money on useful stuff like infrastructure and research, which creates economic demand in the short term and higher productivity in the long term.

The ‘Green’ bit re-purposes this idea to be about retooling the economy to get off fossil fuels.

This most recent iteration of the concept is a little different because the US economy is not doing badly in terms of GDP – it’s actually growing. However most of that extra growth is only benefiting the rich, while ordinary Americans struggle. So the Green New Deal is more about economic justice than growth – good jobs paying living wages, public healthcare and education, affordable housing.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, part of a movement

You may well have heard of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez already, as she’s quickly become very popular in a short space of time. I have been reading up on her lately and I’m a huge fan.

She is the youngest woman ever to be elected to Congress, at 29 years old she is now going to represent the 14th district of New York – covering the Bronx and part of Queens. She caused waves when she ran for the primary against Democrat old-timer Joe Crowley and won, after he had held the seat for ten terms.

https://twitter.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1063917941383671808

She is very progressive – a self-described democratic socialist, clearly very passionate about social justice and environmental issues including climate change.

She is half Puerto Rican and she comes from a working class family. She ran an incredibly impressive grassroots campaign – didn’t take any money from corporate donors and had a passionate army of volunteers and small donations from ordinary people. Such a feat is almost unheard of. She won by focusing on the issues that her community cares about, running a positive campaign rather than making it about Trump. Central to her winning strategy was reaching out directly to the disengaged and disenfranchised who don’t normally vote, because politicians don’t normally speak to them.

She has a degree in Economics and International Relations and is incredibly intelligent and articulate and comes across as refreshingly genuine, with wheelbarrows of charm.

For you British readers – think Jeremy Corbyn, except a young Latina woman and more charismatic and even more progressive – and fresh, without the inevitable baggage of having been in politics for 35 years. But her democratic-socialist principles, her authenticity, being elected on the back of a grassroots movement – in those ways she’s very similar.

Even more exciting – she’s not alone, she’s part of a movement.

The new intake of Democrats from the recent mid terms is the most diverse ever, with more women than ever, historic numbers of people of colour, other minorities, as well as teachers and scientists running and winning. Many of these won on very progressive platforms and are bringing a much needed new energy into the stuffy and corrupt world of politics.

A organisation called Justice Democrats is recruiting, training and campaigning for Democrat candidates who back their platform of progressive policies.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (or AOC for a cool abbreviation) is one of seven new Congress members they helped to elect in 2018.

And the climate activists who were demanding a Green New Deal? They are from a group called Sunrise Movement, a group of young people campaigning for climate justice, green jobs and the transition to a zero carbon economy.

We need strategy, not ideas

What AOC, Sunrise Movement and Justice Dems are doing here is actually very strategic. They aren’t just having a protest to demand a Green New Deal. That would raise awareness and get the idea talked about, but essentially not much else. Democrats now control Congress but Republicans have the Senate and the White House. And most mainstreams Dems aren’t even that concerned about climate action anyway. Even if they were, they have zero hope of passing this incredibly radical policy package at the moment.

But the demand isn’t actually for a Green New Deal itself. Here’s where it gets a bit ‘policy wonk’ so stick with me. This is interesting I promise.

The actual demand is for Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi to set up a special committee. This would have a specific mandate to spend two years building out a proper detailed plan for how to implement a Green New Deal, and then in 2020 when the next election rolls around, this time the big Presidential one, they would then have the plan ready for their campaign, and ready to implement if and when they win. And now that Democrats have control of Congress, Pelosi has the power to set up committees – with no approval needed from the Senate or President.

There’s another interesting part to the demand, and that is that this committee would not allow its members to take donor money from the fossil fuel industry. A smart protection against conflicts of interest co-opting it.

So far, they have got ten Congress members to support the proposal, and counting. That’s pretty damn impressive work.

https://twitter.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1063983199477473280

Nancy Pelosi herself has expressed some support for it, though hasn’t actually agreed. It’s extremely ballsy for AOC to make such a demand of her before even starting work, and siding with the external activists doing a sit-in was certainly a far cry from the usual wheeling and dealing behind closed doors that politicians usually engage in to get their ideas through.

But with this bold opening move AOC has made a name for herself and pushed ambitious climate action right onto the agenda. Pelosi may even need AOC’s support to be elected Speaker of the House, as she can’t afford to lose very many votes.

For a long time, I’ve been saying that the green left needs to stop fixating on great ideas for the end goal and focus more on strategy and tactics. That’s what’s actually happened here. The idea of a Green New Deal has been around for years, getting no where. Only now that it’s being used as part of a smart political strategy is it getting mainstream traction.

Do I think they will get their committee and make their amazing plan and then implement it in 2020 with the US becoming carbon neutral and amazing for working class people by 2030? Um… No. There are incredible obstacles in the way and getting any kind of decent climate or left wing policy through the US system is a colossal struggle – let alone something as radical as this.

But it’s good that this new movement is aiming high with their opening ask, because they will be sure to be haggled down whatever their opening is, even if it’s something that should have bipartisan appeal. By aiming big, they have moved the Overton window and shifted the conversation. A Green New Deal is now something that is within the frame of discussion, which is a significant change.

I’m very excited to see how this develops. If you’re as excited as I am, I suggest following the #GreenNewDeal hashtag on Twitter and following @Ocasio2018, @justicedems and @sunrisemvmt. And I’ll be writing about this more soon! And as always, subscribe to make sure you get the my next post.

Featured image credit: Corey Torpie, Wikimedia Commons, Creative Commons.

The post Green New Deal: A bold vision for America’s future appeared first on P2P Foundation.

The Caliph of the Ahmadyya Muslim Community spoke about how we need world leaders to prioritize helping the poor out of poverty in the same urgent manner as acting on climate change. He said that the world’s poorest do not worry about the latest greenhouse gas figures because they’re too busy worrying about whether they can feed their children today.

This comment hit me hard because it simultaneously rang true yet also seemed to contradict what I know about climate change hurting the poor most.

On the one hand, it makes perfect sense that people won’t care about longer term problems or global problems when they are focused on basic survival today.

#Climatechange will affect the worlds poorest the most. We must transition to sustainable energy sources to prevent increased poverty and inequality. #EarthDay https://t.co/4mQVv4xbBF

— Oxfam Canada (@oxfamcanada) April 22, 2018

But people prioritize, and all problems are relative.

Even if the global poor know climate change is affecting their community in a serious way, they probably won’t have it top of mind if they are struggling to feed their children and their only water source is contaminated and miles away, or their family are sick and they can’t afford healthcare. These urgent problems are naturally going to take precedence. And I think it’s important for Western environmentalists like myself to understand that.

So, do the global poor care about climate change?

I was very curious, so I decided to dig into some research. I found four surveys comparing attitudes to climate change across countries. Shall we dive in?

The research: what the global poor thinks of climate change

I’m going to summarize each of the four studies I looked at before going on to my own analysis and conclusion. I encourage you to read these studies yourself if you’re interested, as they are all packed with fascinating detail that I don’t have time to go into here.

1. UN survey 2014

• Huge survey asked citizens to rank global issues by importance
• Covered a good range of countries from rich to middle income to poor
• You can see the data here and a good analysis by Vox here
• People in rich countries rank climate change #9 on the list
• Middle income countries rank climate change #14 on the list
• Poorest countries rank climate change last on the list
• Global average placed education first and climate action last

2. YouGov survey 2015

• Smaller survey of citizens asked to rank global issues in importance
• Covered 17 countries in Europe, Asia and the Middle East plus the US and Australia
• None of the poorest countries were included – none from Latin America or Africa
• You can see the data here, with a really cool interactive datavis
• Developing countries China, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia were included
• China and Thailand among the most concerned about climate change
• Indonesia and Malaysia among the least
• Global average places climate action third behind poverty and terrorism (which was the top by miles – likely influenced by the timing of the survey just after the December 2015 attack in Paris, but note climate has gone from last to third place compared to the UN survey)
• UK and US among the least concerned about climate change

3. Pew Research Centre survey 2015

• Large survey covering a good spread of 40 countries
• Asked citizens a number of questions about their views on climate change
• Majorities in every country said it is a serious problem, but wide variation between countries
• Citizens in Latin America and Africa, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, are most concerned about climate impacts
• Citizens in higher emissions countries are less concerned
• You can see the data here

4. Gallup survey 2007-08

• Using older data but huge sample size covering over 119 countries
• Claims to be biggest pubic survey on climate change to date, representing 90% of the world population
• Asked citizens how much they know about climate change and if they know of it, how much of a threat is it to them and their family
• Over a third of world’s adults do not know about climate change at all
• This figure was as high as two thirds in many developing countries
• Education level was biggest determiner of climate awareness
• When people in poor countries are aware of climate change they are very concerned about it
• Perception of climate risk very high in South America and many African and Asian countries
• You can see the study in Nature journal here and a good analysis on Carbon Brief here

Analysis: What is the data telling us?

So, as you can see these four surveys show mixed results. The UN survey is very clearly aligned with the Caliph’s comment that people in the poorer countries are not concerned about climate change as they have more urgent problems to worry about.

The YouGov survey shows a much more mixed picture. But it is also the least relevant for our question because it only asks people from 17 countries, only four of which are developing countries (that’s if you count China) and none of the world’s poorest countries are included. So while fascinating in other ways, let’s set that one aside for now.

The Pew survey appears to show the opposite of the UN one: people in the poorest countries are actually the most concerned about climate change. Meanwhile, people in the countries that have the highest emissions (i.e. richer ones) are not as concerned.

Young woman gathers water from Mwamanongu Village water source, Tanzania. Image credit: Bob Metcalf / Wikimedia Commons (CC0)

The Gallup survey has two big points relevant for our question. On the one hand a high proportion of people in the poorest countries do not even know what climate change is. Clearly you can’t worry about something you don’t know exists. (Although I bet they do worry about the impacts of climate change likes floods, droughts, storms etc). But when they are aware of climate change, they tend to be very concerned about it.

The studies with the most clear-cut results are the UN one and the Pew one – which suggest opposite conclusions. Why is this? It’s possible that the Pew one, timed very close to the climate summit where the Paris Agreement was signed, could have picked up on rising awareness and excitement around that. But to be honest I doubt that the citizens of the South American and sub-Saharan African nations were so engaged in that process as to shift the results so dramatically.

What I think is much more relevant is the nature of the studies and how people think about risk.

The UN one, that said the global poor are least concerned about climate change, asked people to rank a list of global issues from most to least important. While the Pew one, that said the global poor are most concerned about climate change, asked people about their views on climate change in isolation. The Gallup survey, which said when the global poor know about climate change they are very concerned about it, was similar to the Pew study – i.e. it asked about climate in isolation.

So, my conclusion from this is that the global poor are very concerned about climate change, more so than we are, but they don’t prioritize it because they are even more concerned about other problems they face. Such as feeding their children, like the Caliph says.

This makes sense intuitively and is backed by the data. So, what does this mean for global climate action, poverty alleviation and development?

What this really means

Looking into this has made me even more convinced that tackling global poverty has to be done in tandem with tackling climate change. They are intricately connected. I think it’s important that we remember climate change is a historical injustice: the poorest countries suffer the worst impacts yet have done least to cause it and have the least capacity to address it.

Yet it is vital that they do address it. Vital for them, as they face the most serious risks, and vital for all of us as we simply can’t afford for poor countries to start polluting as much as we have. That may well be unfair but it’s tough – nature doesn’t care what is fair between humans. But we do, or should, care about fairness and justice, so it is the responsibility of the richer nations to help the poorer ones develop in a sustainable way, leapfrogging over the polluting stage of development to a clean economy.

I also think it is totally unreasonable for us to expect the poorest countries to reduce their consumption of energy and resources. Yes, efficiency gains should always be made where possible, but the reality is they are consuming way too little to meet their basic needs while we are consuming way too much.

How women in Kenya are improving their families’ food security through simple land-restoration technology https://t.co/QWZZsQnQ2G #GenderInAg #SDG5 Photo: World Agroforestry Centre / Ake Mamo pic.twitter.com/DQPr5aEeX5

— GREAT Agriculture (@GREATAgResearch) April 23, 2018

Luckily, there are many forms of climate action that the poorest countries can take that both improve their people’s lives today while also helping to fight climate change. These include conserving forests and wetlands, sustainable forestry, agroforestry, composting, offgrid renewables and others. Along with climate adaptation (such as flood defences, drought-resistant crops etc) these forms of mitigation are what they should be focusing on, because they can be done while improving livelihoods.

I’m excited to delve into each of these topics on this blog at some point. For now, please share this post and subscribe to catch the next ones. And be thoughtful about global inequality and poverty when discussing climate change solutions.

To be effective, the climate movement needs to be inclusive and intersectional.

Header photo: Children going to gather water from river, Lao PDR. Image credit: Asian Development Bank / Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

The post Do the global poor care about climate change? appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Sure. It’s the scary thing that’s happening to the planet because we burn too much carbon.

But do you actually understand the science of why it’s happening?

Whether you’re completely new to this or you just want a refresher, you’re in luck.

I’ve picked out 5 excellent videos for you which explain it in beautifully simple terms. They’re short, and they have animations. I know the subject matter is a little threatening so I’m making this as easy as I can. If you watch all these then I promise you will get the basics of climate science – even if you’re not the scientific type.

1. Climate Science: What You Need To Know via It’s Okay To Be Smart

6.20 minutes

This one starts off pointing out how well established and consensus-filled the science is, despite some haters still doubting it. The presenter of this cute science channel then goes on to explain the basics in 24 easy steps. They want you to be prepared for that day you end up chatting to an enraged climate denier at a party who’s furious about the “polar bear lobby”, so they debunk a couple of stubborn myths, too.

2. CLIMATE 101 with BILL NYE via Climate Reality

4.33 minutes

This one starts off with a scientist in a lab coat using plants, a globe and a bunch of chemical bottles to act out the greenhouse effect, which later turns into animation – all narrated by Bill Nye. He gets interrupted a few times by a TV showing climate deniers talking crap, and clearly explains the basics of the science, which as he points out, has been understood for decades. If you fancy it, Bill even shows you how to recreate the greenhouse effect with a simple DIY science experiment!

3. Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s Simple Explanation of Climate Change via Guy Science

3.59 minutes

Famous for bringing astrophysics to the masses, Neil DeGrasse Tyson heads up this one. He explains the greenhouse effect and how it’s just very basic physics and isn’t scientifically controversial at all. In fact Carl Sagan wrote about the greenhouse effect on Venus back in the 1960s, and in the 1980s warned that the same could happen to Earth, “turning our only heaven into a kind of hell”. Neil tells us why we know the extra carbon isn’t coming from volcanoes. He also makes a good final point: it’s such a shame that carbon dioxide is an invisible gas – we would be so much better at dealing with it if we could all see it.

4. Climate Change Is Simple – David Roberts Remix via Ryan Cooper

15.01 minutes

This video is a remix, mostly of a talk by David Roberts of established environmental news site Grist, and also includes visuals of the earth to explain the greenhouse effect, much like the others. The difference? This one is pretty hard hitting. Not gunna lie, it’s pretty scary. He thinks we’re going to shoot way past the 2 degrees safety limit and that at current levels we’re heading towards something as high as 6 degrees (we don’t know for sure – scientists are uncertain about that). Which is pretty terrifying. But I think it’s important to watch it, because to really get climate change, you do need to get the seriousness of the crisis, before moving on to being proactive. He ends with the bold call to action: “Your job now is to make the impossible possible”.

5. The No-Nonsense Guide to Climate Science via The New Internationalist

4.18 minutes

In this one, Danny Chivers, author of the No Nonsense Guide to Climate Science pocket book, runs through why the planet is heating up (the greenhouse effect again) what the current impacts are, and what the future impacts are likely to be. He tells us all this while wandering about the streets of Oxford, supported by on-screen text and special effects. A key point: the basics of the greenhouse effect has been understood since 1896. That’s eighteen ninety six, not nineteen.

To sum up…

The greenhouse effect is the process where greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide) in the earth’s atmosphere trap some of the sun’s heat and stop it radiating back out to space. That’s normal, but releasing extra carbon into the mix accelerates the process and makes Earth hotter.

Carbon is like salt. A little is essential for life, but too much is dangerous. And modern life makes it very easy to have too much.

The greenhouse effect has been well understood for a long time and is based on very basic physics. There is lots of uncertainty about the details of climate change, but the core equation of fossil fuels > carbon > greenhouse effect > global warming is really not debatable. It’s the political implications that are controversial. And it’s how we respond that’s debatable.

What now?

Assuming you’re not a denier (if so please rewatch those videos and pull your head out of the god damn sand) then you’re probably feeling pretty bad right now.

Here’s the thing: while getting to grips with the science is crucial to climate action, I don’t think it helps to dwell on the science too much. Once you get the core facts, it’s better to focus on the political and practical sides of climate action. I suggest starting with my post on The 3 Simplest Things You Can Do To Fight Climate Change. One of them is extremely helpful and only takes 10 minutes. Action time!

Featured image: The greenhouse effect works a lot like an actual greenhouse. (Out.of.Focus / Flickr, Creative Commons). 

Reposted from The Climate Lemon

The post Understand Basic Climate Science With These 5 Beautifully Simple Videos appeared first on P2P Foundation.

In pre-industrial times, cities were still the cores of political power and the economy, but less so. More people lived and worked in the surrounding countryside. That trend has been steadily reversing since industrialization, with more and more of the global population flowing into the urban centres of the world. There’s no question that cities are important.  Today, cities have a new stage on which to flaunt their power: the fight against climate change. This post is all about why climate action in cities will be where the global fight against climate change is won or lost. Cities will determine our collective future.

Just a quick side note: while underlining the importance and power of cities, I don’t want to make it seem like rural areas are not important. Just under half the world’s population still lives in rural areas, the countryside still provides almost all the food and natural resources that make life possible, and of course geographically, rural areas account for the majority of the planet. The rural is where most of the world’s animals live and is made up of all the beautiful and vital habitats that we rely on for so called ‘ecosystem services’ – things natural habitats do that we need, such as powering the water cycle, cleaning the air and making soil. If you happen to live in the country, no one is saying your part of the world isn’t important any more. Okay?

Now, with that out the way…

1. Most people live and work in cities – and that’s increasing

A steady trend of urbanisation has been going on for all of human history, which is now accelerating. In 2009 we passed an important milestone, when over half the world’s people lived in cities and towns for the first time. Now it’s 54%, and the urbanisation is happening quickest in Asia and Africa (while richer countries already went through this phase and are now pretty steady). The UN expects almost 70% of the population to be urban by 2050. That’s a major infrastructure challenge in itself. People tend to move to the city searching for work and a better standard of living. Yet fast urbanisation without proper planning leads to slums and all kind of issues like overcrowding, pollution, increased sickness and crime.

As most businesses are based in cities, they are of course the commercial hubs of the world, accounting for the vast majority of the world’s economic activity. Just the 600 wealthiest cities accounts for 60% of GDP today. That’s likely to remain, but the composition of the 600 will shift, with many Chinese cities joining the club over the next few years.

By 2050, 70% of people will live in cities. How can we stop #cities from becoming #inequality traps? Read https://t.co/6bZKEou3Jg pic.twitter.com/lVmljfCTIT

— OECD (@OECD) November 2, 2016

2. Cities use the most energy and resources, and produce the most waste

As they have the most people and economic activity, it stands to reason cities would also have the biggest environmental impact. Their ‘ecological footprints’ – the area of productive land needed to produce their resources and absorb their waste – are huge. Like a mega-organism, they ‘consume’ vast quantities of food, water, resources, energy and products, and expel huge quantities of rubbish, dirty water and pollution. It’s a linear, unsustainable model.

How carbon-heavy cities are varies massively around the world. What’s not so obvious is how much cities can diverge from their home countries. For example, emissions are higher per person in London than in New York City, even though the UK emissions per person are way smaller than the USA. This blog post has a clear representation of the carbon emissions in several major cities. Just use it as a rough guide though – it’s based on population x emissions, but the emissions are from self-reported data between 2005 and 2010 which probably doesn’t include embedded emissions (more on that in another post).

The importance of #climatechange management in #cities. different carbon footprints #UNHABITAT world cities report pic.twitter.com/7Pg3lQkDw2

— Alis Daniela Torres (@alisdaniela) July 11, 2016

3. Cities are particularly vulnerable to climate change

So where does climate change come in? It’s already in the picture, since climate change is affecting people and the economy, both of which are cantered in cities, and climate change is affected by carbon emissions, which are also cantered in cities.

But there’s an even more direct link. Cities are very vulnerable to climate change because so many of them are on the coast or a big river. This means rising sea levels threaten to flood them. Major cities such as New York, Mumbai and Shanghai are particularly at risk. In most cases the water can be kept out with barriers, but they are hugely expensive and that is public money that could be spent on education, health or other infrastructure. London’s Thames Barrier will need to be upgraded to keep out storm surges from the river as climate change leads to sea level rise and more extreme weather.

Coastal Cities and climate change, how ready are American cities? @IWAHQ #waterwisecities https://t.co/S2RddhkwpQ

— Lisa Andrews (@LisaMAndrews_) February 20, 2017

4. The city is the perfect scale for catalysing change

We need action at every scale to successfully address climate change: from the global to the personal, and everything in between. But smaller or bigger scales are more difficult. Working at the level of the household can sometimes feel insignificant, like a tiny drop in the ocean. Some people find it hard to get motivated about change at such a small scale. On the other hand, action at the national level is certainly significant but it’s intimidating. States are big and slow and full of bureaucracy. It’s hard for one person to have an impact, or to feel like they can. And yet cities sit in the middle as the Goldilocks scale. They are big enough to matter and small enough to change. Also, city mayors are often more respondent to local needs, including climate adaptation, than national politicians, because they’re closer to the grassroots.

It may be simple, but I actually think this is the most important point of the 7.

Hanover Action launch a community-based One Planet Living action plan Sat 4th March, 1.45pm Please RT https://t.co/fdFLJmckvO #OneHanover pic.twitter.com/ZFVBBMMGdS

— Hanover Action (@HanoverAction) February 25, 2017

5. National contributions to the Paris Agreement aren’t enough

The historic Paris Agreement which passed into force in 2016 and requires all countries to work together to keep global warming under 2 degrees, will only be successful if cities step up to the plate.

All the national action plans submitted so far add up to limiting climate change to around 2.7 degrees – and that’s if they’re followed to the letter with no backsliding. The 0.7 gap is expected to be filled by “non-state actors” which is weird policy speak for cities and big business. To this end, cities have taken an unprecedented central place in the big global sustainability agreements of the last two years, being specifically highlighted in the Paris Agreement and also the Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda. (If you have no clue what those are, you’re not alone. They’re not very well communicated to the public. I’ll be discussing them both in later posts).

.@CloverMoore of Sydney and Vancouver's @MayorGregor speak on how cities can collaborate to fulfill the Paris Agreement #Cities4Climate pic.twitter.com/aF3tbTSP1N

— C40 Cities (@c40cities) December 1, 2016

6. National government leadership is unreliable

It also makes sense for activists and climate campaigners to focus on creating change at the city scale because national governments are so unreliable on this issue.

We do need their support, but sadly we can’t rely on getting it. In America, Trump is desperate to undo years of climate progress, and is already starting to dismantle Obama’s climate policies. In the UK, it’s not politically correct to admit climate denial, but the Tories just pay it lip service while ignoring the issue and favouring fracking over renewables.

National governments are very partisan, with each new administration making dramatic policy U-turns, which is not good for environmental policies, which are longer term by their very nature. Certainly longer than a government term of 4 or 5 years. To clarify: we definitely do need national policy, but it’s unstable. Cities on the other hand, are less dramatically partisan and so more stable partners in the climate battle.

“Energy experts give Trump the hard truth: You can’t bring coal back” by @climateprogress https://t.co/ecCJf3wNVv
turn our backs on future?

— Elaine Vincent (@bndforcollege) February 14, 2017

7. Climate action in cities is already leading the way

And the other good news is that cities are already leading the way. American, European and Asian cities are all speeding ahead of their respective countries. Copenhagen is totally bossing the transition, with an action plan to go fully carbon neutral as early as 2025. American cities and states, including New York, California, San Diego and LA, have proclaimed their plans to continue with bold climate action in open defiance of Trump’s Big Coal agenda. China is planning to start building ‘forest cities’ where skyscrapers are blanketed with trees, shrubs and plants in order to clean up air pollution and absorb carbon. Paris has passed legislation, backed by the mayor, to encourage anyone to plant urban gardens throughout the city.

Thanks to the action of city leaders @MarkWatts40 is "sticking with the optimists" on climate change https://t.co/ec7b0hfpwb #cities4climate pic.twitter.com/Z3CVEAbpSU

— C40 Cities (@c40cities) March 1, 2017

And in our digitally connected age, cities have an unprecedented opportunity to connect and collaborate. Networks are springing up, such as the C40 cities initiative, a network of 90 cities accounting for 25% of global GDP and 1 in 12 people, which are committed to going zero-carbon in line with the Paris Agreement. Similarly, the Compact of Mayors, supported by the UN, is for climate leader mayors of an ever growing list of cities to convene and help each other respond to climate change.

Conclusion

In conclusion I’d like to draw your attention to the final episode of Planet Earth 2, the Attenborough nature documentary series so exquisitely produced that some refer to it as “Earth porn”.

The final was my favourite episode, because it made me think and gave me hope.

Each episode had featured a major habitat or biome, like deserts, rainforests, mountains. The final one was on the “newest habitat on Earth” – cities. I thought it was a beautiful and thought-provoking idea to describe cities as habitats. The episode showed how full of natural life our cities already are, and ended on an even more exciting note: how biodiverse they could be if we redesigned them to be eco cities. Imagine what they’d be like if every building had roofs and walls alive with plants and wildlife.

Just finished Planet Earth 2, 'Cities'. Just amazing. And a profound message for all: https://t.co/lFRPL8R6WT

— Kate Pain (@katepain) December 27, 2016

China is planning its first Forest City for early 2018. Perhaps we should all be taking a leaf from their book, and adding more leaves to our concrete jungles.

What do you think is the most important thing about cities from a climate perspective? Have you been involved in any community climate action, or would you like to? Let me know in the comments.

The post 7 Reasons Climate Action In Cities Is Our Ultimate Lifeline appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Yay for the Paris Agreement!… Wait. What actually is that?

If you’ve read anything much about climate issues, you’ve probably come across the term ‘Paris Agreement’ – aka ‘Paris Accord’, ‘Paris Climate Treaty’, ‘Paris Climate Deal’ or simply the ‘2015 climate deal’. Like a lot of climate lingo, it isn’t immediately obvious. This post will explain the Paris Agreement in simple terms. As a global diplomatic agreement which was 40 years in the making, there’s a lot of intricacies that we won’t be able to cover here. But this is the gist of it.

So, enough chit chat. What actually is it?

The Paris Agreement is a binding international agreement, led by the UN, that the global community will work together to limit climate change to less than 2 degrees of warming, compared to pre-industrial levels.

2 degrees has long been seen as the safety limit, above which climate change would be likely to spin out of control. The Agreement states that we will also “pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5 degrees” – a much tougher goal, but a much safer and fairer one (more on that later). Over 100 nations have ratified the Agreement, covering over 75% of global carbon emissions. The Agreement was hashed out at an UN conference in December 2015 and came into force on 4th November 2016.

It’s seen as such a big deal because the UN has been calling conferences on how to deal with the threat of climate change for the best part of four decades, and they’ve always failed, until this one. There’s so many vested interests and conflicting views and different national priorities that it’s next to impossible to get everyone to agree. While there are many weak spots, the Agreement is a big achievement because it’s the world’s first global and binding climate deal.

The key highlights

Apart from the headline goal of staying below 2 degrees, here’s some of the key highlights.

(If you want to check out the official text, be my guest. To be honest it makes The Silmarillion look as readable as The Very Hungry Caterpillar, so good luck).

• We’ll be effectively net zero carbon by 2100

  There’s a statement that carbon emissions must be no higher than absorption by the environment by 2100, but no clear deadline for when fossil fuels must be phased out. This could mean carbon pollution continues far in to the future, as long as there are enough forests and other natural ecosystems to absorb it (known as ‘carbon sinks’). Only problem is, by the end of the century is waaay too far away. To limit warming to 2C we must keep around 80% of known fossil fuel reserves in the ground – and of course even more for the tighter 1.5C target. Still, this is the first time we’ve had a global target to get to a post-carbon society.

• We’ll ramp up ambition every five years

  There is going to be a review mechanism, where every five years the world’s nations will ”take stock” of their collective progress, and ramp up climate commitments, with the first official one in 2023. This is crucial because so far the national climate action plans are only sufficient to limit global warming to 2.7C – a dangerous level. This was a major sticking point, with large developing nations – notably India and China – opposed to ramping up their contributions so soon. It’s good news this is included in the text. Also, nations are “encouraged” to revisit their climate plans in 2018, before they take effect in 2020.

• Irreversible climate damage gets lip service

  The thorny issue of loss and damage is included – kind of. The most climate-vulnerable states have been adamant that they will suffer some irreversible impacts that cannot be mitigated nor adapted to. For example, losing part of their country to sea level rise, mass deaths and forced migrations, the inability to continue growing a staple crop. The have passionately, and rightly, demanded they must have some form of compensation from the rich nations for these losses – in addition to the finance mobilised for mitigation and adaptation (which is for things like renewable energy and flood defences).

  The rich nations, especially the USA, have opposed these calls. The American government have been terrified of any language denoting legal liability, because if the deal leaves American companies or the American government open to being sued on climate grounds, the climate-denying corporate-loving Republicans will block the deal and we’ll all be screwed. The final draft includes the principle of loss and damage and says something must be done about it, but clarifies this action cannot be through legal liability. This isn’t fair. But it is pragmatic.

• Target confirmed for $100 billion in yearly climate finance

  As previously agreed, the rich countries will provide at least $100 billion a year of climate finance to the developing world, in a ”transparent” manner. How exactly this will be done is still being worked out. It’s very important that the word ”transparent” was used, but it should have gone further. This was a sticking point in the negotiation, as many of the richer nations claimed that nearly $60 billion had already been mobilised, but many developing nations claimed this was not true. They said the calculations were not clear, and that the figure includes loans and the double-counting of finance already provided for other reasons. This is a valid objection.

  I know for sure that my own county, the UK, was doing this. Cameron’s government pledged to redirect our whole aid budget to climate finance. As many of the countries that would be receiving standard development aid are the same ones that will be getting climate finance, our pledge amounts to almost nothing. It’s highly likely other countries are doing the same and it’s totally out of order.

  The rich countries have the historical responsibility for causing this mess – the least we can do is help poorer countries transition and adapt. Anyway, this point is right to be included but it should be stronger.

• Only voluntary action until 2020

  The Agreement “encourages” voluntary climate action in the years running up to 2020– when this deal will take effect. It is not good enough to wait until then before doing anything, so I sincerely hope countries start early. The good news is momentum is still running high from getting the Agreement into force within a year, which is earlier than expected. The text “decides” (sounds better than the other funky verbs flying around the document) that the period 2016-2020 will see a “technical examination process” around clean technology transfer. That sounds promising, if vague.

• We need cities and businesses to step up to the plate

  The Agreement “urges” nations to work with “non-state actors” (anything that isn’t a whole country, e.g. a city, county, business, university, community group, NGO etc))to ramp up action prior to 2020, and beyond.  It also looks like non-state actors are going to be relied on to bridge the gap between what the national climate plans can achieve, and what we need to stay under 2 degrees. The good news is 450 cities made climate pledges at the 2015 climate summit. 165 local governments have pledged to get to net zero carbon by 2050, and 90 major cities (covering 25% of world GDP) have joined the C40 climate action program.  I’ll write more about that in other posts as it deserves more attention. Spoiler: Copenhagen wins most ambitious prize, pledging to completely decarbonise by 2025!

https://twitter.com/c40cities/status/818842356665450496/photo/1

• It’s legally binding. Sort of…

  Although the Agreement is described as legally binding, it’s actually only true to a certain extent. Basically, it is now international law that every country which has ratified the Agreement has to submit a climate action plan every five years, and each plan has to be more ambitious than the last. Great. But here’s the thing: actually implementing the plans is not a legal requirement. As the plans will be submitted to international scrutiny at the regular UN climate summits, the idea is that the motivation to be seen as a climate leader rather than being shamed on the world stage will be enough to get everyone to comply. I’m not convinced. But unfortunately several countries – including China and the USA, the two largest emitters – promised to reject the deal if specific emissions cuts were legally binding. So what we got was an imperfect compromise.

How is it different to other attempted climate deals?

It’s novel in two main ways.

One, it covers all countries in more or less the same way, while previous agreements (such as the Kyoto Protocol of 1997) had two distinct categories for developed and developing nations, with only the developed ones being required to make emissions cuts. That approach became unfeasible when the larger developing countries started supercharging their pollution. It also gave sceptics in the rich countries a great excuse to drag their heels. (“Not fair! Why should we do anything when China doesn’t have to?”).

Two, the process started with each country being asked to produce  national climate action plans, called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs – what a mouthful!) which together forms the bones of a global action plan to actually implement the Agreement. The idea got a lot of buy-in from countries that may have resisted the process otherwise, and it allows plans to be nationally relevant (e.g. many poorer countries said they’d plant forests, rather than cutting down on their small and vital energy use). However the problem with the ‘what can you do’ as opposed to the ‘this is what you need to do’ model, is that when all the plans were in, they didn’t add up to enough to stay below 2 degrees. Scientists who analysed the plans said if they’re all implemented to the letter (in itself a big if) then we’re on track for 2.7 degrees of warming. Ouch.

So, will it be effective or not?

It’s hard to say. The good news is, this is the closest we’ve ever got to a workable global action plan. All the major polluters are on board, climate action is getting more mainstream every day, and the renewable energy revolution is snowballing so fast it’s probably got a critical mass of its own now.

The bad news? We’ve already hit 1C of global warming, and even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, there’s a good chance that could climb to 1.5C – or even more. The reason is because carbon doesn’t just do its business and then piss off, it hangs out in the atmosphere for ages – up to a century. There’s a delay between carbon pollution and the climate change it causes. Essentially, we’re always dealing with the impacts of what we did about 50 years ago.

Staying below 2C is a HUGE challenge. But it is physically possible. Although the climate is already changing, but we still have time to avoid that worst bits.

The other good news is that many of the actions needed to reach net zero carbon are also good for society in other ways. There’s plenty of win-wins and win-win-wins to be had. The rest of the posts on this blog explore those opportunities!

Here’s some quotes from the experts

I’m a climate blogger, not a scientist or NGO leader. Let’s hear from some people who should know.

“This marks the end of the era of fossil fuels. There is no way to meet the targets laid out in this agreement without keeping coal, oil and gas in the ground,”
– May Boeve, Executive Director of 350.org

 

“We have witnessed something incredible today. Finally, we can feel hopeful that we are on a path to tackling climate change,”
– Tim Flannery, scientist and conservationist, The Climate Council

“It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”
– James Hansen, climate scientist and author

Quick note on that one: sadly, he’s probably right. So it’s lucky that fossil fuels won’t be the cheapest energy source for much longer.

“The fact that we got an agreement with a temperature target, with a commitment to a direction of travel, with a commitment to improving and enhancing the financing that’s going to be necessary to meet that direction, I’m pretty optimistic about it,”
– Nigel Arnell, climate scientist at University of Reading

What’s next for the Paris Agreement?

The Paris Agreement is actually ahead of schedule. It passed into force less than a year after the original agreement, which was faster than anyone expected. A promising start! But what next?

There was a climate summit in November 2016, in Marrakech, Morocco, and there will be one each year (next up is May 2017 in Bonn, Germany). But the next big one won’t be until 2018. Until then, the aim of the game will be to iron out all the vague language in the Paris Agreement and decide on rules for transparency and reporting. This administrative stuff will be known as the ‘Paris Rulebook’. It’s not very sexy (unless you find legislative small-print sexy!?) but it’s bound to have important repercussions for its overall effectiveness.

As the Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions elegantly puts it:

“In the long evolutionary arc of the U.N. climate effort, Marrakech was an important transitional moment, pivoting from the years of negotiation that produced the Paris Agreement to a new phase focused on implementation.”

Bring on the implementation!

Featured image: Celebrating the signing of the Paris Agreement. Credit: UNclimatechange / Flickr, Creative Commons. 

The post What Actually is the Paris Agreement on Climate Change? appeared first on P2P Foundation.

All these and much much more make up the Sustainable Development Goals – the globally agreed wish list for saving the world and building a better future. If you haven’t heard of them, you’re not alone. Their public outreach leaves a bit to be desired. In any case, they make up the UN’s development agenda up until 2030.

In this post, I’m going to introduce you to what the SDGs are, what’s good about them, and my one problem with the SDGs that actually drives me crazy every time I think about it.

What are the SDGs

The Sustainable Development Goals (aka SDGs or Global Goals) follow on from where the Millennium Development Goals left off, in 2015. They will guide the development priorities for the UN and its agencies, the aid budgets of most wealthy nations and major development charities up until 2030, when it’ll be all change all over again. Here’s the full list:

• Goal 1  End poverty in all its forms everywhere
• Goal 2  End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
• Goal 3  Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
• Goal 4  Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
• Goal 5  Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
• Goal 6  Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
• Goal 7  Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
• Goal 8  Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
• Goal 9  Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
• Goal 10 Reduce inequality within and among countries
• Goal 11 Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
• Goal 12 Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
• Goal 13 Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*
• Goal 14 Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
• Goal 15 Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
• Goal 16 Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
• Goal 17 Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

As you can see, they’re… Let’s call them ‘stretch targets’.

The SDGs. Image credit: Reedz Malik

Others more cynical than I have called them a utopian wishlist more suited to a letter to your fairy godmother than a serious policy statement, or words to that effect. But you know what they say about ambitious goals: even when you don’t hit them you still end up doing pretty well. And to be honest, aren’t these exactly the things we should be aspiring to?

What is amazing about the SDGs

Before I get on to my one glaring problem with the SDGs, I want to take a moment to consider what’s so good about them, particularly in comparison to the old Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

They apply to the whole world

.No country has locked down 100% of this stuff. The UK certainly hasn’t. These goals are for every country to work towards, and kisses goodbye to the patronising old development model of ‘developed’ countries that have apparently got it all worked out (yeah, right) and ‘developing’ ones who need help.

They’re holistic

.They cover a lot of ground because they understand that poverty and wellbeing are complex, multi-faceted and relate to a lot of different things at once. I like the way the goals are not split up into environmental, social, economic, but instead many of the goals cover all three aspects of sustainability. Goodbye silos.

They’re inclusive and collaborative

When the goals were being drafted, diplomats from each country got to contribute and they also engaged with charities, scientists and academics for their contributions. You may not have been consulted or even told about them until now, but compared to other high-level global policy, this was very inclusive.

My one problem with the SDGs

So the SDGs sound wonderful, right? They do. Really, they do, and overall I think they are a fantastic thing that will do a lot of good in the world. But there’s one problem that I think people should be aware of (and I want to get it off my chest).

One of the goals is liable to contradict the others. Yes there will always be trade-offs and that’s understandable, but in my opinion, one of these goals sticks out like a sore thumb because it just doesn’t fit.

Goal 8 calls for ‘decent work and economic growth’ and I take issue with it for several reasons.

What’s wrong with Goal 8?

Problem 1: it’s a means not an end

This may just be me, but I can’t stand it when you have a list of things and one doesn’t fit with the others. Like if you had a whole list of your favourite books and one of the list items is ‘Waterstones book token’. What the hell is this?! A book token isn’t a book, it’s just a way to get more books! Goal 8 is kind of like the book token here. It isn’t a goal in itself, it’s at best a means to reach other goals. As this article on postgrowth.org puts it: “Growth that is at best a means to reach certain welfare goals is redundant as a development goal in itself.”

Problem 2: Growth doesn’t necessarily benefit the poor

Problem 1 on its own would just be a grammatical pet peeve. What makes it problematic is that it isn’t even a very effective means to achieve the other goals. In fact sometimes it can do the opposite. The most important goal of all the SDGs is to eradicate extreme poverty. The thinking is obviously that economic growth helps with this – but that isn’t actually necessarily true. Of all the wealth produced by growth since 1990, the poorer 60% of the world population only received a pitiful 5% of it. And that’s not even the poorest, that’s over half of all humanity. The very poorest people who need it most got such a tiny sliver it’s almost nothing. Growth is a very inefficient way of helping the poor out of poverty because the vast majority of the wealth goes to the rich, a slice goes to the middle class and the poor just get some crumbs. So, Goal 8 could easily conflict with goals 10 (reduced inequality) and Goal 1 (no poverty).

Problem 3: Growth probably isn’t compatible with a safe climate

There’s no hard evidence that economic growth is compatible with the kind of emissions cuts we need to keep climate change to below 2 degrees. The only time global emissions went down is when we had the 2008 global crash and recession. People get all excited about decoupling when they see that the UK’s economy grew while our direct emissions went down, but that figure for direct emissions doesn’t include ‘embedded emissions’ in consumer goods, and it doesn’t include aeroplane flights or international shipping. We have seen that emissions can hold steady while growth rises, but we need emissions to go down, and fast, and we just don’t know that that can happen with growth. If not, then we need to prioritise climate action (Goal 13) rather than growth (Goal 8).

Problem 4: it shouldn’t be 2 in 1, it’s already an important goal

Unlike the others, goal 8 is a double whammy: decent work and economic growth. They obviously thought those were a natural pair, but they could easily be in conflict, as a company that abuses its workers could make more profit and so contribute more to economic growth. Well-paid workers contribute more to growth than poor ones, because they have more spending power, but healthy workers could contribute less to growth than sick and stressed ones because they won’t be paying for medicines and therapies. All this is because of what a strange and unhelpful metric GDP growth is. Decent work – good jobs that are useful and fulfilling with fair wages and rights – is already a very important goal. Why stick something else in there as well? The way it stands, Goal 8 could even come into conflict with… Goal 8.

Problem 5: it gives companies/governments a loophole to keep doing the same

As well as being unnecessary and counterproductive, the growth part of goal 8 also gives regressive companies and countries a loophole where they can say ‘we’re working on the SDGs!’ when they’re doing anything that will boost growth, even if it goes against the other goals. A study by Ethical Corp found that Goal 8 was in the top 3 of the SDGs that corporates are most keen to engage with. I recently saw a major brand boasting on their website that they were making progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 8. Like… Every other company out there.

The SDGs also sidestep deep systemic issues (but that’s understandable)

The Sustainable Development Goals were never going to be perfect. They have flaws because they are trying to make progress from within the capitalist system we have. They sidestep fundamental causes of poverty like structural readjustments, unfair debts, unfair trade deals, and of course the history of colonialism. They seek to bring the poor and ordinary up, but don’t dare to mention the elephant in the room: that the elite have too much. None of this is surprising and I don’t think the drafters of the SDGs or the UN can be blamed for that. They weren’t going for a radical political statement that would be divisive. They wanted to get everyone on board. Like sustainable development itself, it’s very hard for anyone to disagree with the SDGs as a whole. That means that as well as the UN, charities and governments, they have also had excellent buy-in from corporates, with the likes of Unilever, Coca Cola and H&M using them to inform their ‘corporate responsibility’ and sustainability work. 46% of corporate reps said their business would engage with the SDGs, according to a survey by Ethical Corp. Their engagement is worth a little watering down, given their immense scale.

Conclusion

The SDGs represent real progress. They give everyone across sectors a common language for sustainable development and gets everyone on the same page. They represent a clear roadmap on where we collectively want to go from here. The progress they aspire to can be best realised if we ignore growth and work on the things that matter – which are summed up perfectly with all the other goals.

Photo by Davezilla was taken

The post My one problem with the Sustainable Development Goals that drives me crazy appeared first on P2P Foundation.

It’s mainly about the atmosphere and polar bears and carbon, right? Well, not really. I mean yes – it is about those things, but mainly it’s about human rights and politics. If that doesn’t make immediate sense to you, then this post is for you. Here’s why climate change is about human rights:

• Responsibility for climate change, its impacts and the capacity to adapt to it are unequal
• Climate change deepens every existing social inequality
• Climate action has huge potential to enhance equality and human rights

Not convinced yet? Let’s explore each of those points…

Responsibility, impacts and capacity are uneven

Responsibility for climate change

The roots of climate change go back to the drawn of the Industrial Revolution, which kicked off in the UK in the late 1700s and quickly spread around North Western Europe and then the world.
The discovery of coal, and later oil and gas, changed everything.

These three fossil fuels are fossilised organic matter from millions of years ago, hugely energy-dense, which release their pent up energy when burned. Being made from ancient dead plants and animals, they are full of carbon, and when burnt, that carbon goes into the atmosphere. The extra carbon acts like an insulating blanket, blocking heat from radiating out to space, making the Earth warmer. This is known as the “greenhouse effect” and is vital to life. Without it we’d be absolutely freezing, like a planet sized fridge-freezer. But when it comes to blankets, it’s not just ‘the more the better’ is it? You get too hot. And that’s what’s happening now.

Related: Understand Basic Climate Science With These 5 Beautifully Simple Videos

Europe and later the other rich nations were blazing it up for decades before poorer countries came on the fossil-burning scene, and by the time industrialization took off in the rest of the world (which is still ongoing) we had already chucked enough carbon into the sky to start changing the Earth’s entire climate. Until the 1960s the top emitters were all rich industrialized nations (with the UK at the top of that list for roughly a century after kicking off the Industrial Revolution). In the mid 20^th century China and Russia joined the big boys of carbon pollution. Today China is the biggest emitter, but it’s important to remember that:

• They have well over a billion people, roughly one seventh of the world’s population
• They manufacture a large proportion of the world’s goods

If you put it in per person terms instead, the biggest emitters are all rich countries, with Australia and the USA topping the list.

See this 49 second visualisation of historical emissions around the world to get a sense of it. (and check out this epic interactive version on Carbon Brief).

The point is, over the last 200-odd years, the vast bulk of the carbon emissions have come from the rich countries – Europe, North America, Australia, Japan. Apart from Japan they happen to be Western and white.

Impacts of climate change

The impacts of climate change are also uneven across the globe, and across each country. The most severe climate impacts are expected across tropical regions – which happen to be in Africa, Asia and South America – as they are already hot and stormy. The more arid parts of Australia and USA will also be seriously affected by heatwaves, droughts, storms and wildfires. Low-lying and coastal areas will be worst hit by rising sea levels – there are small low-lying island states which are literally already disappearing under the sea. Most of the countries hit first and worst by climate change are poor, and all the poorest regions of the world are expected to have very severe impacts.

Map of the Day | Impact of global warming on crop yields | UN Climate Change report released http://t.co/Lxq42nrrsI pic.twitter.com/R8EPZ3taPw

— Dr Steve Millington (@DrSDMillington) March 31, 2014

It’s worth noting that even at the catastrophic 4 degrees of warming that sees most of the world turn into a desert or a floodplain, the UK remains “habitable”. That doesn’t mean we’d get off scott-free, it would still see floods, droughts, sea level rise, water shortages and food prices rocketing. (And those impacts would be mostly borne by the British poor – who else?) But it would be an oasis of liveability compared to the rest of the world.

Global map of climate change impacts – physical, biological & human http://t.co/RyicjZ4h4D #IPCC #AR5 pic.twitter.com/ZBsWNBfZw0

— EGU (@EuroGeosciences) March 31, 2014

It’s also worth noting that even 2 degrees of warming, which politicians have agreed as the line in the sand, would still be an absolute disaster for Africa. Yeah, looks like the West is screwing over Africa yet again. Shameful.

The point is, the countries that have done the absolute least to cause climate change, and benefited the least from industrialization, are expected to be some of the hardest hit. If that isn’t injustice, I don’t know what is. But wait, there’s more…

Capacity to adapt to the impacts

The final in the trio of shit which is climate injustice, is the capacity to adapt.

This is where the stark differences in the most affected countries comes into play. Australia and the USA will both be badly hit, and are actually already seeing impacts, but the difference between them and the others is that they are rich countries. Their governments have budgets for public spending, they have emergency services, they have a welfare state (kind of – I’m looking at you America), they have strong institutions and infrastructure. These tools of survival mean that while impacts may be dire, the government has some capacity to respond and invest in adaptation.

Compare this to, for a random example, Chad. In land-locked northern Africa with a sizeable desert region and a non-desert arid region that runs the risk of becoming desert, they’re one of the many countries that will be seriously impacted, like USA and Australia. The difference in that Chad is one of the poorest and most corrupt in the world. Most people are subsistence herders and farmers, earning their livelihood directly from the land – meaning they’re incredibly sensitive to environmental change. And they don’t have stored wealth or a welfare state to fall back on. Also, they’re biggest export is crude oil, so when that’s no longer a viable industry they’ll likely be even poorer.

The problem for countries like Chad, is that they’re struggling as it is, so literally cannot afford to invest in adaptations for climate change. They simply don’t have the cash, can’t borrow on favourable terms, often don’t even have the policy freedom, they lack the institutions and infrastructure they need, in some cases officials are corrupt and there’s all too often political/religious/ethnic violence to contend with. What a shit-storm. And that’s before you add in the increased risk of actual storms.

So, many of the countries most effected by climate change are not only the ones who’ve done the least to cause it and reap the benefits of carbon-heavy industry, they’re also the least capable of adapting to it.

Climate change deepens existing inequality

The second key reason why climate change is about human rights, is because due to the uneven nature of its cause, impacts and adaptability, it tends to deepen existing inequalities.

I have already alluded to the raced nature of climate change. Zoomed out, it looks awfully like a case of white people screwing over everyone else. Sorry to be so blunt, but it’s true. As discussed above, the (mostly) white rich nations have by far the most historical responsibility for causing climate change, have benefited the most from carbon-heavy industrialization, and yet it is the mostly black, Asian and Latino countries that will see the most catastrophic climate impacts, despite being poorer and less able to cope with them. Pretty damn racist, when you put it like that.

But there’s more: obviously many countries are now very multicultural, so race is relevant within countries, too. Case in point of course is the USA: due to the history of racism, black and Latino people are more likely to live in polluted areas and less likely to be protected by the state. Remember Hurricane Katrina. A much higher proportion of the people who were stranded, lost their home or lost their lives happened to be black. Also, sometimes crisis can push people into crime. It’s well known that American police and courts are massively harsher to black criminals than white.

Of course, you could say it’s not really a case of race, but class. That’s kind of true, although you can’t ignore the reality that people of colour tend to be poorer on average. (I wonder why that is? Hmm… *Cough* history of massive racism *cough*). The two are entwined. Anyway, arguably the clearest reason climate change is political is because it’s all about class and power. Like usual, the poor are most at risk simply because they are poor so don’t have the required capacity to adapt. They also have less political power so governments are prone to policymaking that serves the richer classes instead. Whenever a crisis hits, it’s usually the poor who bear the brunt of it.

Climate change can also deepen gender inequality. This isn’t too relevant in the West, but many poor and rural societies have a very gendered division of labour that sees women doing work that is hit by climate change first and worst. For example, women may be gathering water, growing vegetables and gathering firewood, while men of the community are travelling to do paid work in the city or working on an industrial cash-crop farm. In these cases women will have their work more badly hit. Depending on how much understanding of climate change there is in the community, they could potentially be blamed for their lower yields and be seen as less capable, leading to a loss of power and worse prejudice against them. Also existing issues like women having less access to land, less legal rights and social inequality could see single and widowed women finding it harder to cope with climate impacts.

Basically, without a huge concerted effort to ‘level the playing field’, climate impacts are likely to deepen existing inequalities.

Climate action has huge potential to enhance equality and human rights

Lastly, climate change is political because it doesn’t necessarily need to deepen inequalities; it has the potential to do the opposite. The movements for climate justice and environmental justice are about healing deep wounds of injustice and oppression via environmental action. Climate action can, if done right, be a powerful force for making a society more equal and advancing human rights. It can be a catalyst for positive social change.

Take my native UK as an example. A climate strategy could include bringing high-tech green industries to the North of England that has never recovered from the deindustrialization of the 1980s; it could see parks, urban farms and green spaces bought to inner city areas; it could see run-down coastal towns becoming hubs for off-shore wind and marine energy; it could see struggling farms reinvigorated with an increased demand for local food and extra income streams from ecotourism and renewable energy; it could see public transport improve and also become more affordable. Such schemes wouldn’t only lower carbon emissions, they’d also create millions of good jobs, spread wealth more equally across the country, improve public health, regenerate poor neighbourhoods and improve quality of life for everyone – especially those on lower incomes.

Detroit 'Agrihood' Turns Vacant Lots Into Edible #Farms via @seeker https://t.co/DQR3Xs2teE #urban #agriculture #sharingcities #ecocity

— Julian Zelazny (@BorealJulian) December 16, 2016

Paris Mayor @Anne_Hidalgo plans to restrict traffic, create more spaces for cyclists, pedestrians & clean transport: https://t.co/3UO2BRTDBV pic.twitter.com/DzdPeuyzPX

— C40 Cities (@c40cities) January 15, 2017

Also look at the global scale. Climate action has the potential to reduce the sickeningly-enormous gap in living standards, wealth and power between the rich and poor nations via transfers of money and tech. Such actions would not be charity. They would be a good start to paying off the huge debt of injustice discussed earlier. We’re already seeing a glimpse of this: there is an agreement for rich countries to send $100 billion a year in climate funding to poorer countries. Unfortunately this hasn’t been done yet, but it has been signed into the Paris Agreement as a key target. Concerted climate action has the potential to make the world a much fairer place. This is what the climate justice movement is all about.

Sooner or later, we will be moving to a post-carbon world. It could be one in which the rich huddle in their guarded air-conditioned mansions while starving environmental refugees clamour at the gates. Or it could be a brighter more beautiful world, one where we deal with the impacts of climate change with solidarity, cooperation and compassion. What that would look like is uncertain, there are so many possibilities. Personally I see a world of egalitarian high-density high-tech globally-connected eco-cities surrounded by newly planted forests.

So, climate change is about way more than carbon. It’s about who lives and dies, who survives and thrives, who has power and who is powerless. Change is coming whether we like it or not, but that change can be harnessed in dramatically different ways. And what determines what path we take, is politics.

Featured image: People being rescued after being stranded by Hurricane Katrina. (US Navy / Public Domain).

Cross-posted from The Climate Lemon

The post Why Climate Change Is About Human Rights, Politics & Justice appeared first on P2P Foundation.