Contre l’introduction de la compensation “forêts” dans le marché carbone californien

Monsieur le Gouverneur Brown,

Nous vous écrivons pour vous exhorter de ne pas inclure le mécanismes de compensations internationales REDD + (Réduction des émissions dues à la déforestation et à la dégradation des forêts) dans le marché carbone en Californie. Les systèmes de marché carbone n’ont pas réussi à réduire les émissions alors que les projets de compensation ont constamment ignoré les droits des communautés locales et sont intrinsèquement viciés. Les organisations soussignées envoient cette lettre pour alerter contre l’inclusion de crédits REDD + qui ne manqueront pas d’aggraver les conflits environnementaux et sociaux.

Les premières tentatives pour inclure les forêts dans les marchés carbone soutenus par l’ONU ont conduit à d’importants débats techniques. Les crédits forêts internationaux REDD + ont été jusqu’à présent rejetés dans les négociations climatiques de l’ONU et exclus du marché carbone européen de l’Union européenne (EU ETS) pour de bonnes raisons. Des problèmes techniques non résolus, y compris l’additionnalité (qui prouve que la zone forestière n’aurait pas été protégée sans), les ‘fuites’ (les destructeurs de la forêt passant à un autre domaine), la permanence (les arbres ne stockent pas le carbone en permanence), la mesure (très complexe et incertaine car elle repose sur la diversité des variables biologiques) et la temporalité (les émissions et les absorptions peuvent encore survenir plusieurs années après qu’un projet arrive à terme). Outre ces incertitudes techniques, les causes sous-jacentes de la déforestationrestent largement ignorées tandis que la responsabilité de réduire les émissions à la source est édulcorée.

En raison de ces problèmes, introduire les mécanismes internationaux de compensations forêt dans le cadre du marché carbone en Californie augmenterait probablement les émissions de gaz à effet de serre (GES) relatives aux objectifs AB32 plutôt que de les diminuer, puisque les industries polluantes achètent des droits pour accroître leurs émissions. Cela reviendrait àexposer les communautés à faible revenu qui vivent à proximité des installations industrielles en Californie à des problèmes environnementaux et de santé encore plus importants. Alors que de nombreux peuples autochtones et des communautés tributaires des forêts qui vivent dans le Sud ont très peu de titres officiels sécurisant pour leurs terres, REDD + va alimenter la spéculation, augmenter la pression sur les droits fonciers et déposséder les populations locales. Ces risques sont aggravés par l’inclusion de la monoculture dans la définition standard des Nations Unies de ce que constitue une forêt.

Les forêts riches en biodiversité ont une signification unique pour ceux qui y vivent et en dépendent pour leur subsistance et leur survie culturelle. Les projets REDD+ font peser de graves préoccupations en termes de violations des droits humains et environnementaux et ont conduit à ce que des peuples autochtones et des communautés locales dans le Chiapas (Mexique) et dans la région Acre (Brésil) s’y opposent (ce sont les deux régions où les pollueurs de la Californie achèteraient ces crédits internationaux). Réduire les forêts à de seuls puits de carbone fait courrir d’énormes dangers. Les luttes pour la terre s’intensifient à mesure que les droits sur les terres sont séparés des droits d’accès et d’usage d’autres éléments de la nature.

Le gouvernement du Chiapas au Mexique, promeut par exemple un projet REDD + pilote dans la forêt tropicale Lacandon sur plus de sept réserves naturelles. Afin d’être «prêt pour REDD +», le gouvernement doit prouver que les zones à partir desquelles des certificats de carbone seraient générés sont sous une protection environnementale. A cet effet, la Commission nationale adéjà déplacé plusieurs communautés locales en utilisant des expulsions forcées et des pressions économiques en dépit de fortes résistances.

En outre, l’expansion des monocultures d’agrocarburants est une autre raison de l’empressement du gouvernement du Chiapas. Un programme d’Etat, intitulé “Reconversion productive de l’agriculture», finance les communautés locales de la jungle Lacandon pour planter des palmiers africains et de plants de jatropha pour les agrocarburants qui sont envahissants, qui détruisent les forêts locales et créent des dépendances économiques qui écrasent l’autonomie locale. Le Chiapas est l’État au Mexique avec la plus grande zone de plantation de palmiers, situés sur les bords de zones naturelles protégées, et ces monocultures utilisent de grandes quantités de pesticides qui polluent les sols et l’eau et nuisent gravement à la santé des populations locales. Une fois de plus: les plantations ne sont pas des forêts!

La Californie devrait appliquer des politiques qui s’attaquent aux causes profondes de la déforestation et du changement climatique afin d’entamer une transition vers une ère post-fossile. Les politiques fondées sur la justice sociale et environnementale doivent garantir que les pollueurs soient tenus responsables de leurs émissions de GES et de la destruction de l’environnement, tout en faisant en sorte qu’elles bénéficient aux communautés vulnérables et à faible revenu. Nous vous demandons de maintenir le système international REDD + hors du marché carbone californien. En outre, nous vous recommandons respectueusement de regarder attentivement la façon dont le marché carbone européen a échoué, comme une préfiguration de ce qui pourrait advenir marché carbone en Californie. Commercer les émissions de carbone n’est PAS une solution au changement climatique.

Cordialement,

- Aliança RECOs – Redes de Cooperação Comunitária Sem Fronteiras (Brazil)

- Movimento Mulheres pela P@Z! (Brazil)

- ITEREI

- Friends of the Earth International

- Centro de referência do movimento da cidadania pelas águas florestas e montanhas Iguassu ITEREI

- Plataforma Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Democracia y Desarrollo (PIDHDD)

- Terræ Organização da Sociedade Civil (Brazil)

- Carbon Trade Watch

- FERN

- Common

- Attac France

- The Corner House

- Centre for Civil Society Environmental Justice Project (Durban, South Africa)

- Earth Peoples

Despite their disruption, can dams help the organisation work towards ending poverty while keeping carbon emissions down?

* Howard Schneider for the Washington Post
* Guardian Weekly, Tuesday 14 May 2013

The World Bank is making a major push to develop large-scale hydropower, something it had all but abandoned a decade ago but now sees as crucial to resolving the tension between economic development and the drive to tame carbon use.

Major hydropower projects in Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zambia, Nepal and elsewhere  all of a scale dubbed “transformational” to the regions involved  are part of the bank’s fundraising drive among wealthy nations. Bank lending for hydropower has scaled up in recent years, and officials expect the trend to continue.

Such projects were shunned in the 1990s, in part because they can be disruptive to communities and ecosystems. But the World Bank is opening the taps for dams and related infrastructure as its president, Jim Yong Kim, tries to resolve a quandary at the bank’s core: how to eliminate poverty while adding as little as possible to carbon emissions.

“Large hydro is a very big part of the solution for Africa and south Asia and south-east Asia … I fundamentally believe we have to be involved,” said Rachel Kyte, the bank’s vice-president for sustainable development and an influential voice among Kim’s top staff members. The earlier move out of hydro “was the wrong message … That was then. This is now. We are back.”

Indigenous Himba protest against Orokawe dam and human rights violations, 2013 (Photo © Earth Peoples)

It is a controversial stance. The bank backed out of large-scale hydropower because of the steep trade-offs involved. Big dams produce lots of cheap, clean electricity, but they often uproot villages and destroy the livelihoods of the people the institution is supposed to help. A 2009 World Bank review of hydropower noted the “overwhelming environmental and social risks” that had to be addressed but also concluded that Africa and Asia’s vast and largely undeveloped hydropower potential was key to providing dependable electricity to the hundreds of millions of people who remain without it.

“What’s the one issue that’s holding back development in the poorest countries? It’s energy. There’s just no question,” Kim said in an interview.

Advocacy groups remain sceptical, arguing that large projects, such as Congo’s long-debated network of dams around Inga Falls, may be of more benefit to mining companies or industries in neighbouring countries than poor communities.

“It is the old idea of a silver bullet that can modernise whole economies,” said Peter Bosshard, policy director of International Rivers, a group that has organised opposition to the bank’s evolving hydro policy and argued for smaller projects designed around communities rather than mega-dams meant to export power throughout a region.

“Turning back to hydro is being anything but a progressive climate bank,” said Justin Guay, a Sierra Club spokesman on climate and energy issues. “There needs to be a clear shift from large, centralised projects.”

The major nations that support the World Bank, however, have been pushing it to identify such projects  complex undertakings that might happen only if an international organisation is involved in sorting out the financing, overseeing the performance and navigating the politics.

The move toward big hydro comes amid Kim’s stark warning that global warming will leave the next generation with an “unrecognisable planet”. That dire prediction, however, has left him struggling for how best to respond and frustrated by some of the bank’s inherent limitations.

In his speeches, Kim talks passionately about the bank’s ability to “catalyse” and “leverage” the world to action by mobilising money and ideas, and he says he is hunting for ideas “equal to the challenge” of curbing carbon use. He has criticised the “small bore” thinking he says has hobbled progress on the issue.

However, the bank remains in the business of financing traditional fossil-fuel plants, including those that use the dirtiest form of coal, as well as cleaner but carbon-based natural gas infrastructures.

Among the projects likely to cross Kim’s desk in coming months, for example, is a 600-MW power plant in Kosovo that would be fired by lignite coal, the bottom of the barrel when it comes to carbon emissions.

The plant has strong backing from the United States, the World Bank’s major shareholder. It also meshes with one of the bank’s other long-standing imperatives: give countries what they ask for. The institution has 188 members to keep happy and can go only so far in trying to impose its judgment over that of local officials. Kim, who in his younger days demonstrated against World Bank-enforced “orthodoxy” in economic policy, now may be hard-pressed to enforce an energy orthodoxy of his own.

Kosovo’s domestic supplies of lignite are ample enough to free the country from imported fuel. Kim said there is little question Kosovo needs more electricity, and the new plant will allow an older, more polluting facility to be shut down.

“I would just love to never sign a coal project,” Kim said. “We understand it is much, much dirtier, but … we have 188 members … We have to be fair in balancing the needs of poor countries … with this other bigger goal of tackling climate change.”

The bank is working on other ideas. Kim said he is considering how the bank might get involved in creating a more effective world market for carbon, allowing countries that invest in renewable energy or “climate friendly” agriculture to be paid for their carbon savings by industries that need to use fossil fuels. Existing carbon markets have been plagued with volatile pricing  Europe’s cost of carbon has basically collapsed  or rules that prevent carbon trading with developing countries.

“We’ve got to figure out a way to establish a stable price of carbon,” Kim said. “Everybody knows that.”

He has also staked hope for climate progress on developments in agriculture.

Hydropower projects, however, seem notably inside what Kim says is the bank’s sweet spot  complex, high-impact, green and requiring the sort of joint public and private financing Kim says the bank can attract.

The massive hydropower potential of the Congo river, estimated at about 40,000MW, is such a target. Its development is on a list of top world infrastructure priorities prepared by the World Bank and other development agencies for the Group of 20 major economic powers.

Two smaller dams on the river have been plagued by poor performance and are being rehabilitated with World Bank assistance. A third being planned would represent a quantum jump  a 4,800MW, $12bn giant that would move an entire region off carbon-based electricity.

The African Development Bank has begun negotiations over the financing, and the World Bank is ready to step in with tens of millions of dollars in technical-planning help.

“In an ideal world, we start building in 2016. By 2020, we switch on the lights,” said Hela Cheikhrouhou, energy and environment director for the African Development Bank.

It is the sort of project that the World Bank had stayed away from for many years  not least because of instability in the country. But as the country tries to move beyond its civil war and the region intensifies its quest for the power to fuel economic growth, the bank seems ready to move. Kim will visit Congo this month for a discussion about development in fragile and war-torn states.

Kyte, the World Bank vice president, said the Inga project will be high on the agenda.

“People have been looking at the Inga dam for as long as I have been in the development business,” she said. “The question is: Did the stars align? Did you have a government in place? Did people want to do it? Are there investors interested? Do you have the ability to do the technical work? The stars are aligned now. Let’s go.”

Worlds in movement…

Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free

Naomi Klein

“I am proud to have been part of the group at 350.org that worked with students and other partners to develop the Fossil Free campaign. But I now realize that an important target is missing from the list: the environmental organizations themselves.

“”People are fed up with being told that the best way to fight climate change is to change their light bulbs and buy carbon offsets, while leaving the big polluters undisturbed. And they are raring to take the fight directly to the industry most responsible for the climate crisis.”

“… some of the most powerful and wealthiest environmental organizations have long behaved as if they had a stake in the oil and gas industry. They led the climate movement down various dead ends: carbon trading, carbon offsets, natural gas as a “bridge fuel”—what these policies all held in common is that they created the illusion of progress while allowing the fossil fuel companies to keep mining, drilling and fracking with abandon. We always knew that the groups pushing hardest for these false solutions took donations from, and formed corporate partnerships with, the big emitters. But this was explained away as an attempt at constructive engagement—using the power of the market to fix market failures.

“Now it turns out that some green groups are literally part owners of the industry causing the crisis they are purportedly trying to solve.”

Read on….

Earth Peoples und 143 weitere Zivilgesellschaftliche Organisationen fordern, dass die EU ihren Emissionshandel abschafft.

Obwohl das Emissionshandelssystem der EU (ETS) seit sieben Jahren scheitert, behauptet die EU dieses reparieren zu können. Das hat aber keine Glaubwürdigkeit mehr. Wir sind der Meinung, dass das ETS spätestens 2020 abgeschafft werden muss, um Platz für wirksame Klimaschutzmaßnahmen zu machen.

Das ETS der EU –  das Vorzeigeprojekt der EU-Politik zur Bekämpfung des Klimawandels – wurde im Jahr 2005 eingeführt. Daraus entstand der derzeit größte weltweite Kohlenstoffmarkt.[i] Das ETS umfasst ‚cap and trade’ (Deckelung und Handel) und Ausgleichsysteme, die es den Teilnehmer ermöglicht, Emissionsgenehmigungen und Ausgleichgutschriften zu kaufen und verkaufen. Damit können sie entweder ihre Reduktionsziele erreichen oder einfach einen Gewinn auf dem Markt machen. Die Idee dabei ist, industrielle Treibhausgasemissionen kostengünstig durch Anreize für klimafreundliche Innovationen zu reduzieren und somit die Industrie auf einem kohlenstoffarmen Weg zu bringen.

Aber dieses System ist gescheitert. Die Besessenheit der EU auf den „Preis” als Motor für Veränderungen hat nicht nur ein Wirtschaftssystem welches von einer umweltschädlicher Rohstoffausbeutungsindustrie abhängig ist zementiert. Die  Emissionen aus fossilen Brennstoffen sind in 2010 und 2011 deutlich angestiegen.[ii] Mehr noch: der Misserfolg wird sich weiter verbreiten, da das ETS als Vorlage für andere geplante Kohlenstoffmärkte, wie zum Beispiel in Brasilien und Australien, und auch als Modell für andere Märkte für ‚Ökosystemdienstleistungen’ für Artenvielfalt, Wasser und Böden verwendet wird.

EU-Regierungen und die Europäische Kommission sind entschlossen, das ETS als zentralen Pfeiler der EU-Klimapolitiken beizubehalten. Die Phase III beginnt jetzt 2013. Es ist jedoch offensichtlich, dass die strukturellen Mängel des ETS nicht beseitigt werden können, zu denen folgende zählen:

• Das ETS hat die Treibhausgasemissionen nicht gesenkt. Begünstigt durch ein Übermaß an freien Emissionszertifikaten, sowie durch günstige Kredite von Offset-Projekten in den Ländern des Südens, waren die schlimmsten Umweltverschmutzer wenig bis gar nicht verpflichtet, die Emissionen an der Quelle zu reduzieren. Tatsächlich haben Offset-Projekte zu einer weltweiten Erhöhung der Emissionen geführt: sogar konservative Quellen schätzen, dass zwischen 1/3 und 2/3 der unter dem ETS gekauften Emissionsgutschriften „keine echten Kohlenstoffreduktionen sind“.[iii] Die Emissionsminderungen, die es nach 2008 in der EU gab, sind vor allem auf die Wirtschaftskrise zurückzuführen.  Die Mehrheit der wissenschaftlichen Studien belegen auch, dass es wenige Anhaltspunkte für einen generellen kausalen Zusammenhang zwischen der Reduzierung von Kohlenstoffemissionen und dem ETS gibt.[iv] Der Export der Industrieproduktion in den Globalen Süden  ist eine weitere Quelle von ‚CO2-Reduzierungen’. Eine Studie, die in der Zeitschrift Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences veröffentlicht wurde, schätzt, dass in einigen europäischen Ländern die ‚importierten’ Emissionen – d.h. diejenige, die nicht als europäische Emissionen gezählt werden, – mehr als 30% vom Gesamtwert ausmachen.[v]

• Das ETS ist ein Subventionsmechanismus für Verschmutzer. Die zwei ersten Phasen des ETS (2005-2007, 2008-2012) haben kostenlos Zertifikate aufgrund historischer Emissionen zugeteilt, was als de facto Subvention für die größten Umweltverschmutzer gewirkt hat. Die Vergabe von zuvielen Zertifkaten hat dazu geführt, dass die Nutzung bestehender Technologien weiterhin erlaubt ist. Jeglicher Anreiz für einen Übergang zu einer kohlenstoffarmen Produktion wurde damit unwirksam gemacht. Eine Studie von CE Delft schätzt, dass fast alle Kosten der Einhaltung des ETS an die Verbraucher weitergegeben wurden. Die Studie deutet an, dass die durch das Überwälzen dieser ‚Kosten’ entstandenen Mitnahmeeffekte €14 Milliarden Profit zwischen 2005 und 2008 ausmachten.[vi] Stromerzeugern war es auch erlaubt, die vollen ‚Opportunitätskosten’ die ihnen durch die Erfüllung der Vorgaben entstanden, an die Verbrauchern in Form von höheren Strompreisen weiterzugeben. Dadurch konnten sie zwischen €23 – €71 Milliarden Profit in der zweiten Phase des ETS einstreifen.[vii] Die Lobbyarbeit der Industrie hat garantiert, dass über 75% der verarbeitenden Industrie weiterhin kostenlose Zertifikate bis mindestens 2020 erhalten wird (das bedeutet ca. €7 Mrd./Jahr an zusätzlichen Einnahmen für die Verursacher aber nicht für die Staatskasse). Jedem Versuch, diese Geschenke zu streichen, stand starke Lobbyarbeit aus energieintensiven Industrien gegenüber. In Phase III muss nur der Energiesektor Zertifkate bei einer Auktion zukaufen. Für Versorgungsunternehmen in Mittel- und Osteuropa werden wieder Ausnahmen gemacht, auch für diejenigen, deren Stromerzeugung sehr stark von Kohle abhängt. Das sollte nicht überraschen, da das ETS so entwickelt wurde, dass die Industrie es ansprechend findet. Mit der Unterstützung der britischen Regierung war der Erdöl-Riese BP einer der Firmen, die Lobbyarbeit für das ETS auf EU-Ebene gemacht hat.[viii]

• Das ETS zeichnet sich durch instabile und sinkende Kohlenstoffpreise aus. Kohlenstoffpreise waren permanent instabil und sinken seit 2008. Das historisches Minimum wurde in Dezember 2012 erreicht, als Zertifkate für €5.89 und Offsetkredite für €0.31 verkauft wurden.[ix] Laut Marktanalysten gibt es keine Aussicht, dass Preiseniveaus erreicht werden, die Anreize zu Änderungen in der Energie-Erzeugungsanlagen nach sich ziehen. Auch wenn sehr vorhersehbare hohe Preise konstruiert werden könnten – was letztlich das Gegenteil dessen ist, wofür das ETS eingerichtet wurden – würden sie nicht ausreichen, um Anreize zu strukturellen Änderungen für Maßnahmen gegen den Klimawandel zu bieten, da keine anderen erforderlichen Maßnahmen vorhanden sind.

• Das ETS fördert soziale und ökologischen Konflikte in den Ländern des Globalen Südens. Das ETS ermöglicht Unternehmen, mittels sogenannter Offsetkredite die vor allem aus Projekten im Globalen Süden kommen,  ‚Emissionen zu sparen’. Die Idee dabei ist, dass jede Tonne zusätzlich ‚geretteten’ Kohlenstoffes einen Kredit erschafft, und dieser Kredit erlaubt eine weitere Tonne woanders zu generieren. Der Clean Development Mechanism (CDM – Mechanismus für saubere Entwicklung), die größte Offset-Regelung, zeigt, dass es schwere soziale und ökologische Folgen für Gemeinden bringt, in denen solche Projekte durchgeführt werden, einschließlich Land- und Menschenrechtsverletzungen, Vertreibungen, Konflikte und stärkere lokale Umweltzerstörung.[x] Doch trotzdem die negativen Auswirkungen immer offensichtlicher sind, ist die Verwendung des  ETS-Offsets 2011 um 85% angestiegen.[xi] Viele der Unternehmen, die Offsets benutzen, haben ihre Gratis-Zertifikate verkauft und dafür CDM-Gutschriften zu einem deutlich niedrigeren Preis gekauft. Den Differenzbetrag haben sie als Profit für sich verbucht.

• Kohlenstoffmärkte sind besonders für Betrug anfällig. Um handelbare Kohlenstoff-Einheiten zu schaffen, muss man Messungen der eingetretenen oder nicht eingetretenen Verschmutzung durchführen. Dafür werden Annährungswerte und andere meist unzuverlässige, oft unkontrollierbaren und für Missbrauch anfällige Berechnungsverfahren benutzt. Im Jahr 2010 wurde z.B. ein riesiger ‚Karussell-Betrug’ im EU ETS entdeckt, der die Allgemeinheit mehr als €5 Mrd. in Form von entgangenen Mehrwertsteuereinnahmen kostete.[xii] Sechs Personen in Deutschland und elf in London wurden aufgrund eines €300 Millionen Betrugs verhaftet, die Kohlenstoffzertifkate über die Deutsche Bank verkauften.[xiii] Große Unternehmen, wie z.B. die Stahlproduzenten ThyssenKrupp und Salzgitter, wurden als betrügerische Kohlenstoffprofiteure bloßgestellt. Sogar der handelsfreundliche World Wild Fund for Nature (WWF) forderte im Dezember 2010 (erfolglos), dass “die EU den Gebrauch von gefälschten Offsets beende”.[xiv] Ein paar Wochen später wurden Gutschriften aus den österreichischen und tschechischen Regierungen gestohlen, was zu einer Aussetzung des ETS-Markthandel führte.[xv] Auch die UNO musste sich 2009 von ihrer wichtigste CDM-Überprüfungsagentur trennen und im Jahr 2011 wurde die Ukraine vom CDM aufgrund des Verdachts auf Emissionshandelsbetrug suspendiert.[xvi]

• Öffentliches Geld wird zum Einrichten von Kohlenstoffmärkten verschwendet, die ihren öffentlichen Auftrag nicht erreichen. Die Steuerzahler sind gezwungen, sowohl die Kosten für die Gesetzgebung, Regulierung und zum großen Teil für die von den Kohlenstoff-Märkten benötigte Quantifizierung, als auch für Bekämpfung von Betrug, Diebstahl, Korruption und Steuerhinterziehung zu tragen. Industrien, die vom ETS abgedeckt sind, bekommen Zuschüsse um weiter zu verschmutzen, während die Regierungen Steuergelder bereitstellen, um überschüssige Emissionen auszugleichen oder um die großzügigen Geschenke für ETS Unternehmen zu kompensieren. Laut Schätzungen muss, zum Beispiel Spanien mehr als 159 Millionen Gutschriften im Ausland kaufen, um ihre Kyoto-Verpflichtungen zu erfüllen.[xvii] Jetzt, wo die Bürger die schwerwiegenden Auswirkungen der Wirtschaftskrise und der ‚Sparmaßnahmen’-Paketen aufgebürdet bekommen, wird das wenige öffentliche Geld leichtfertig an Großunternehmen und Banken umgeleitet, obwohl genau dieser Sektor der Verursacher vieler Probleme ist.

• Das ETS festigt eine Wirtschaft, die auf fossilen Brennstoffen basiert. Das ETS verstärkt die Logik einer auf fossilen Brennstoffen basierenden Überproduktion und Konsums. Es ermöglicht noch mehr Umweltverschmutzung und fördert zugleich die Umsetzung sogenannter ‚sauberer Entwicklungsprojekte, die in der Praxis vor allem der lokalen Bevölkerung und der Umwelt schaden. In Europa gibt es einen Ausbau von Kohlekraftwerke, Schiefergas, Hydraulic Fracturing und zerstörerischen Infrastrukturprojekten.[xviii] Das ETS erhöht nicht nur die Umwelt- und Klima-Schulden des industrialisierten Nordens gegenüber dem globalen Süden. Es  verschärft  auch die Klimakrise weltweit – zum besonderen Nachteil von bereits jetzt benachteiligten Gruppen. Auch die Internationale Energieagentur hat jetzt zugegeben, dass mindestens zwei Drittel der bekannten fossilen Ablagerungen unter der Erde bleiben  müssen, wenn die Welt das Ziel einer maximalen Erwärmung von 2°C realistisch erreichen will[xix] (auch wenn das ein unzureichendes Ziel ist). Das ETS, sofern es fortgesetzt wird, macht dass unmöglich.

• Das ETS verschließt die Tür zu anderen, wirklich effektiven Klimapolitiken und verstärkt gleichzeitig falsche Lösungen wie Atomenergie, große Wasserkraftwerke, Agrarbrennstoffe und industrielle Plantagen. Es hemmt beispielsweise Regulierungen, die angeblich den Kohlenstoffpreis stören. Anstatt eine ‚Kein-Abfall’ Philosophie zu fördern, ermutigt das ETS automatisierte Methangewinnungssysteme, die mehr verrottenden Müll benötigen und informelle Abfallsammler und Recycler verdrängen. Zusätzlich wird die Logik des Verschmutzunghandels nun auf andere Bereichen ausgedehnt, wie zum Beispiel Biodiversität und Wasser.[xx] Die Konsequenz davon ist, dass die Funktionen, Zyklen und Fähigkeiten der Natur  mehr und mehr kommodifiziert und finanzialisiert werden. Die daraus entstehenden Gefahren sind groß; um das zu verhindern ist es notwendig, das ETS als einen verheerender Präzedenzfall anzuerkennen. Wenn das ETS nicht gestoppt wird, werden noch mehr Unternehmen Profit auf Kosten der lokalen Bevölkerung im Globalen Süden, machen, wie z.B. den UreinwohnerInnen und waldabhängigen Bevölkerungsgruppen, Kleinbauern und Frauen, die Ökosystem-Offsetprojekte beinhalten, oder Gemeinschaften, die neben den Einrichtungen leben, die Offset-Kredite kaufen.

Das Beharren auf die Reparatur eines von Anfang an nicht funktionfähigem System heißt zugleich, dass die Aufmerksamkeit und Ressourcen für politischen Maßnahmen, die gerecht und wirksam sind, fehlen.  Der Export des ETS-Misserfolges in andere Ländern unter dem Deckmantel der „Vorreiterrolle“, wird zu einer weiteren Welle der Einflußnahme auf Politik im Süden führen. Die sozialen und ökologischen Schulden des Nordens gegenüber dem Süden werden dann noch höher. Obwohl die europäischen Entscheidungsträger, die derzeit eine  ETS-Evaluierung durchführen, das Schema für ein Post-2020-Phase tendenziell ‚reparieren’ wollen, halten die unterzeichnenden Organisationen fest, dass es nur eine mögliche Option gibt, die für das Klima nützlich ist: die Regelung ein für alle mal zu beenden.

Der Kampf gegen das ETS ist der Kampf für soziale, ökologische und klimatische Gerechtigkeit. Es ist ein Kampf für die Veränderung unserer Energie-, Verkehrs-, Landwirtschafts-, Produktions-, Verbrauchs-, Verteilungs-, Entsorgungs- und Finanzierungssysteme. Wir wenden uns zivilgesellschaftliche Organisationen und Bewegungen mit der Einladung, diesen Aufruf zu unterstützen und sich am Kampf gegen das ETS zu beteiligen.

Though promoted by the European Commission as an effective climate policy, this is a myth. The reality is that for eight years, the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is a complete failure and a subsidy for the worst polluters.

The EU ETS has been making headlines for the past weeks due to failed attempts to raise the carbon prices. On Saturday 20^th April, the EU ETS came first place at Climaxi’s Greenwash competition with a big majority, taking 46% of the votes (545 votes). The Greenwash awards, organised by Belgian activist group Climaxi, is meant for organisations or companies who in spite of the green image they cultivate, promote activities which are far from sustainable.

The nomination was submitted by Carbon Trade Watch, Corporate Europe Observatory and FERN, groups part of theTime to Scrap de ETS campaign, arguing that the ETS needs to be exposed for what it is, a subsidy for the worst polluters that the EU Commission is using to avoid effective climate policies. In addition, the Commission is irresponsibly expanding the scheme to other regions and to other areas of nature.

The Greenwash awards did not run short of nominees with serious damaging credentials, such as the Flemish Institute for Biotechnology (VIB by its Flemish initials), who got 350 votes, nominated by the Field Liberation Movement. VIB is spending lots of the public money it gets to work together with big corporations such as BASF, Monsanto or Bayer, which are responsible of much of the dangerous pesticide, herbicide and genetically modified organisms (GMO) use around the world. Other nominees were Coca-Cola and WWF working together in the campaign for the protection of the polar bear with no mention of the severe impacts of the company in among others the depletion of water resources in India and many other regions of the world. The list was completed with the energy company Electrabel, which features as a green company while keeping nuclear plants and controlling high energy prices, the Limburg Society for Reconversion for its promotion of shale gas, and Deutsche Bank for supporting mining and the exploitation of the North Pole.

It is not surprising the ETS won the first prize. The Commission is indeed doing its best to promote the EU carbon market as a smooth climate tool effective in reducing emissions. And with the help of the World Bank, it is actively encouraging and helping other countries to create carbon markets modelled on the EU ETS.

That is why it is more urgent than ever to expose the EU ETS, and the greenwashing attempts of the Commission. The EU ETS is not reducing emissions. It is not moving industry to tackle the structural changes needed to reduce emissions at source in Europe. Instead, it has helped to lock in an economic system dependent on polluting extractive industries – and has worked as a subsidy for the worst polluters, translating it into enormous windfall profits. And it is blocking real climate action desperately needed in the EU. At the end, the EU ETS has allowed the EU to keep business as usual while painting a green image on false solutions as carbon trading.

This is why over 140 groups are calling to scrap it (http://scrap-the-euets.makenoise.org/), and make room for effective climate policies. The declaration is still open for organizations, networks, groups and collectives to subscribe though the email: scrap.the.ets@gmail.com.

PROTEST
BACKGROUND

Photo © International Animal Rescue Indonesia IAR

Perched atop the remains of the last tree, an orangutan looks helplessly on what was until recently the forest he was living in but is now only ruins. Armed with chainsaws and bulldozers, workers of Bumitama Gunajaya Agro (BGA), a palm oil company, have completely destroyed the rainforest for miles.

Three other half-starved orangutans – a pregnant female and a mother with her child on her back – were also found crawling around the stumps and tree trunks of the cleared rainforest.

“There are more orangutans in the tiny remaining patches of forest in the plantation, along with other protected species such as proboscis monkeys,” explains Adi Irawan of International Animal Rescue Indonesia (IAR). “All of the animals on the plantation are threatened. The company must therefore stop clearing the rainforest immediately.”

Photo © International Animal Rescue Indonesia IAR

This may seem hard to believe, but the palm oil producer BGA has been a member of the RSPO, the label for sustainable palm oil, since 2007. BGA’s customers include IOI, Wilmar and Sinar Mas, companies that sell the palm oil to European food and consumer goods manufacturers and biodiesel producers. Even the EU has recognized the RSPO as a certification system for sustainably produced biofuels.

Please sign our petition to call for a stop to rainforest destruction and palm oil imports.

Orangutans and biodiversity

The habitat of orangutans and the immense biodiversity of tropical rainforests are being irreparably destroyed for ever-larger palm oil plantations. The animals are not welcome on the plantation clearings, and would not be able to survive there. When summoned, the staff of International Animal Rescue Indonesia (IAR) therefore has no choice but to tranquilize the orangutans, capture them, and take them elsewhere.

Video report of the orangutan rescue by International Animal Rescue

Yet hardly any replacement habitats remain for the animals. Beyond the cleared rainforest, endless oil palm monocultures extend to the horizon. Throughout Indonesia and in neighboringMalaysia, rainforests are being cut down for ever more oil palm plantations.

RSPO – Sustainable Palm Oil

The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) is an association on nearly 1,200 businesses – plantation companies, palm oil mills and traders, as well as their customers, including European food and consumer products companies such as Nestlé, Unilever and Henkel. A further dozen organizations with close ties to the industry, such as the WWF, serve as a fig leaf for the certification.

The RSPO does not rule out the destruction of rainforest land for new oil palm plantations. Only “high conservation value areas” (HCVAs) may not be cleared.

Rainforest Rescue is calling for the protection of all rainforest areas. The rainforests of Southeast Asia are home not only to orangutans, but to other endangered species such as proboscis monkeys and other primates, big cats such as tigers and clouded leopards, pygmy elephants, Sumatran rhinos, and many more. Many indigenous peoples and small farmers also rely on rainforests for their homes and livelihoods.

Earth Peoples, together with 255 environmental, animal and  human rights organizations from around the world have therefore long rejected the RSPO as fraudulent labeling and greenwashing.

BGA: Bumitama Gunajaya Agro

The Bumitama Gunajaya Agro (BGA) palm oil company is part of the notorious Indonesian Harita Group, a conglomerate with mining (nickel, bauxite, coal), palm oil, tropical timber and cargo shipping interests. The Malaysian palm oil giant IOI, which also operates a major palm oil refinery in Rotterdam (Loders Croklaan) for the European market, holds a one-third stake in BGA.

Photo © International Animal Rescue Indonesia IAR

To date, BGA has established 124,000 hectares of oil palm plantations at the expense of Indonesian rainforests in Borneo (West and Central Kalimantan) and Sumatra (Riau). The company has secured a further 65,000 hectares of land and is currently clearing around 13,000 hectares a year in order to cultivate oil palms.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

SIGN PETITION Borneo: Stop Orangutan Slaughter in Borneo

SIGN PETITION Sumatra: Indonesia Police: Investigate & Prosecute destroyers of Tripa!

SIGN PETITIONIndonesia: Orangutans – victims of “sustainable” palm oil

Tradução Inglês para Português por FASE

O Parlamento Europeu vota neste dia 16 de abril na Comissão Européia a proposta de protelar 900 milhões de permissões de emissões dentro da EU ETS (sigla em inglês para o Mercado de Carbono da União Européia). A votação mostra que há possibilidades de reforma. Mas antes da votação um novo relatório mostra que os problemas no Mercado de Carbono da UE são sistêmicos e irresolvíveis. Manter este sistema falido simplesmente atrasaria ações reais para reduzir as emissões na Europa.

O relatório EU ETS myth busting: why it can’t be reformed and shouldn’t be replicated (Acabando com os mitos do Mercado de Carbono da União Europeia: porque ele não pode ser reformado e não pode ser reproduzido, em livre tradução ao português e disponível apenas em inglês), foi publicado por diversas organizações membros da declaração Time to scrap the ETS (Hora de desmontar o Mercado de Carbono). A publicação resgata afirmações em defesa do Mercado de Carbono da União Européia e mostra porque cada uma delas não são válidas.

O mito-chave é o da redução do efeito estufa. O pequeno decrescimento de emissões entre 2008 e 2010 estava, na verdade, relacionado à crise econômia. Não houve mudança real no modo como energia é produzida e gasta pela indústria. O Mercado de Carbono da EU é incapaz de desencadear a transformação e as ações deregulações necessárias para um caminho sustentável e justo que possa ser atingido por meio de políticas diretas, explica o relatório.

Outro mito destruído é que o Mercado seja uma ferramenta flexível e rentável para reduzir emissões. “A questão é rentável para quem? As empresas conseguiram fazer lucros inesperados repassando os custos das licenças para poluir para os consumidores. Nas fases I e II, os problemas eram considerados resultado de um mercado ainda nascente, mas sete anos depois, essas questões permanecem e estão piorando”, declara Belén Balanyá, do Corporate Europe Observatory.

O relatório também destroça a ideia de que o Mercado de Carbono é um incentivo para promover investimentos em soluções para energias limpas. O documento afirma que diante do número massivo de licenças existentes para poluir, o mercado conclui que seguir poluindo era a opção mais barata, assim, não foram feitos investimentos perceptíveis em tecnologias limpas ou soluções de baixo carbono como resultado da existência do Mercado de Carbono.

Why are carbon markets failing?
For years we have put our faith in the market to incentivise cleaner technology, and for years the carbon market has been riddled with corruption. It’s time to try something else
in

By Steffen Böhm

The price of carbon credits can be so low that they have no impact on industry and offer no incentive to invest in low-carbon technology. Photograph: Rob Griffith/AP
Carbon markets have lost us more than 15 years in the battle against climate change yet we continue to plough forward with scaling them up. Why?

Some hope that this global expansion of carbon markets will revive their fortunes, helping to raise billions for investments in low-carbon and climate change mitigation technologies. Others, including myself, take a more evidence based approach, arguing that this hope of the pro-market lobby is unfounded, given the inefficient and even corrupt nature of carbon markets so far. There is an urgent need for alternatives to be considered, as the world is running out of time to curb the most serious impacts of run-away climate change.

The principles of carbon markets were established in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, but to date there have been few, if any, measurable reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that can be attributed to these measures. The two most important carbon markets so far – the EU Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS) and the UN’s carbon offsetting scheme, Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) – are failures, yet, new carbon markets based on these schemes are being planned in both developed and developing nations.

The EU-ETS is in turmoil at the moment, as the scheme is more over supplied with carbon allowances than ever before. This means that power stations and factories have been allocated more allowances than they actually need, due to the serious recession in many countries, but also due to intense industry lobbying. There has also been a flood of cheap CDM carbon credits, which has contributed to the price of carbon being so low that it currently is a negligible cost to industry, and, more importantly, it does not incentivise investments in low-carbon technologies.

Profiting from global warming?

As a result, many financial institutions have closed their carbon trading desks and have reduced their stakes in renewable energy funds. In fact, “working under the assumption that climate change is inevitable, Wall Street firms are investing in businesses that will profit as the planet gets hotter”, as Bloomberg reported recently. While new start-ups invest in adaptation, many big energy companies are getting out of renewables and instead bank on profits from increased extraction of fossil fuels.

If it seems unethical that companies would forego mitigation to profit from a hotter planet, it is also surprising that renewed hope and political energy is being put into introducing new carbon markets in places such as California, Australia, Japan and Canada. In addition, the World Bank has been busy introducing carbon markets in many developing countries, such as Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Thailand, Vietnam and South Africa.

Why are carbon markets failing?

Carbon markets would not suddenly work better if the carbon price was right. There are at least three systemic failures with the carbon trading approach. The first concerns the link between carbon markets in the developed world and offsetting opportunities in developing countries. In a WikiLeaks released cable, government officials claimed recently that none of the CDM projects in India (the second biggest host of CDM projects after China) can be considered ‘additional’. This means that every CDM project should go beyond ‘business as usual’, that is, be greener than what would have taken place otherwise. In fact, the opposite is often true.

The GFL gas project in Gujarat, India, for example, has been one of the biggest producers of CDM carbon offset credits in the world, selling them to many of the biggest polluters in the EU. GFL has profited immensely from the CDM, and Europe’s polluters have had a cheap way to offset their climate responsibilities without actually greening their way at all. The EU Climate Action Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, has admitted that such projects have a “total lack of environmental integrity”.

The second reason is that carbon markets have been infested by corruption and non-transparency. When studying one project in India, my research team realised that the Mumbai office of a major international consultancy appeared to have copied and pasted large chunks of documentation from one CDM project to another. In fact, carbon markets have created a lot of income for consultants, carbon brokers and project developers, not to mention the validators, policy makers, NGO professionals and academics who have made a living from these markets. There is very little independent and democratic oversight in the system. Instead, there are many revolving doors between the business, policy, NGO and university worlds, fuelling accusations of corruption.

Contrary to their claims, carbon markets have fuelled unsustainable practices. AT Biopower, a Thai company that generates renewable electricity by the burning of rice husk is able to sell carbon credits to Japanese and other polluters. AT Biopower presents rice husk as a waste product, but, as Carbon Trade Watch activist Tamra Gilbertson says it is actually a vital source of fertilizer in the local, sustainable economy of subsistence farmers. Farmers now have to buy petroleum-based, chemical fertilisers, which makes them worse off and creates negative environmental impacts.

Although it is plain to see that carbon markets have not worked at all, as they have failed to reduce GHG emissions, new trading mechanisms are currently planned in many countries around the world. Given the manifold problems outlined above, more than 100 civil society organisations are (including Earth Peoples) currently calling for the EU-ETS to be scrapped. They ask: why should we put our hope and trust into a system that has failed us so far? There are plenty of more powerful policies that can and should be explored: promotion of local economies, energy conservation, community-owned energy generation and carbon taxes.

None of these will provide a one-fits-all solution. But we cannot afford to lose another 15 years in our quest to rapidly decarbonise our economies, businesses and societies. Carbon markets have given the appearance of us doing something about climate change, while actually legitimising the constant rise of emissions. We need to go back to the drawing board and come up with solutions that actually work in practice.

———————————-

Steffen Böhm is director of the Essex Sustainability Institute, University of Essex, and professor of management and sustainability at Essex Business School. Steffen and his doctoral student - Siddharth, were also the editors of the book - “Upsetting the Offset” (MayFly books - London), in which some of us are contributing authors.

By Chris Lang, 6th March 2013

COONAPIP, the National Coordinating Body of Indigenous Peoples in Panama, has withdrawn from the UN-REDD process in Panama. In a letter to the UN, COONAPIP explains that UN-REDD “does not currently offer guarantees for respecting indigenous rights [nor for] the full and effective participation of the Indigenous Peoples of Panama.”

In a previous letter, dated 20 June 2012, COONAPIP wrote that the process “has been riddled with incongruences and inconsistencies” and that “We feel used in this process.”

In a Resolution from a meeting on 25 February 2013, COONAPIP calls on Indigenous Peoples,

“to proceed with caution and to take the necessary measures to avoid being tricked by United Nations bodies and officials, who have the legal obligation to comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

Ironically, UN-REDD recently released its
Guidelines on Free, Prior and Informed Consent.

READ entire article HERE

Below is a statement from one of Earth Peoples co-founders Hector Huertas, on behalf of the Legal Counsel to COONAPIP, explaining the decision to withdraw from the UN-REDD process

The National Coordinating Body of Indigenous Peoples of Panama (COONAPIP) is a body with representation from the seven Indigenous Peoples of Panama and was identified by the UN-REDD Programme as a key actor in planning the national REDD strategy for Panama. However, COONAPIP is concerned that in the “consultation” process both the government of Panama and UN officials refuse to comply with indigenous rights recognized by the Panamanian State and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

For example, the officials refuse to recognize that almost 76% of the forests of Panama are found in indigenous lands and territories, which Indigenous Peoples have inalienable rights to, and which are recognized by the constitution and Panamanian law. Furthermore, it is contradictory that, on one hand, the officials minimalize the importance of indigenous issues for REDD, and on the other, allow logging companies to participate.

Indigenous Peoples have made it clear that a REDD strategy must first ensure the implementation of the nationally and internationally recognized rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, the UN-REDD officials say that it is not a priority of the Programme to help secure the land rights of Indigenous Peoples who do not have collective deeds and whose land has had protected areas superimposed upon them.

With regards to the issue of full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples, the UN officials and the Panamanian government are dividing indigenous communities with money from the Programme to force supposed consultations. This unethical and reprehensible procedure prompted COONAPIP to stop participating in a process whose objective is to privatize the forests of Panama in violation of the Panamanian constitution and laws, and allow the State to cash in on carbon credits in utter contempt for the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Hector Huertas, Esquire
Legal Counsel of COONAPIP