FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Durban and the Closing Door

by ASHLEY DAWSON

South Africa, the birthplace of the policy of racial oppression and exploitation called apartheid, was a perfect destination for a conference designed to consolidate a new regime of climate-based inequality. Despite press reports heralding the success of the “Durban Platform,” the 17th meeting of the United Nations Conference of Parties (aka COP17) in South Africa in fact sealed a separate and unequal deal on climate change. Now that the dust has begun to settle from the conference, we can make out the key features of what the Climate Justice Network calls climate apartheid.

Perhaps most importantly, the Durban conference failed to deliver a fair and binding agreement to reduce global carbon emissions. There has been a lot of celebration over the preservation of the Kyoto Protocol in the media, but the brinksmanship that led to this outcome has in fact created what Pablo Solón, Bolivia’s former ambassador to the United Nations, called a zombie agreement. Here’s why such a harsh label is apt.

At Durban, a number of the world’s most polluting countries declared that they intend to withdraw from Kyoto’s legally binding regime of emissions reductions. Of course the United States never ratified the agreement, but now Canada, Japan, and Russia have also pulled out, with Australia and New Zealand threatening to follow suit. This means that the second round of negotiations over Kyoto will cover just 1/3rd of the developed nations, who collectively account for only 15% of the world’s annual carbon emissions. Whatever cuts the big polluters make will be purely voluntary. All the world has, in other words, are the emissions cuts countries pledged to in Copenhagen in 2010. These insufficient cuts – even if adhered to – doom the planet to suicidal warming of 4-5° Celsius.

Nonetheless, the so-called Durban Platform establishes a working group tasked with agreeing on some sort of legally binding protocol by 2015 – the major reason for perceptions of the conference’s success. But this agreement – whatever shape it takes – will only come into effect in 2020. Nnimmo Bassey, a Nigerian environmentalist and chair of Friends of the Earth International, called this eight-year hiatus “a death sentence for Africa.”

Bassey is not alone in this assessment. A recent report by the International Energy Association gives the world only 5 years to make the necessary significant cuts to our fossil fuel-based infrastructure in order to avert catastrophic climate change. Fatih Birol, chief economist of the IEA, recently stated that “the door is closing” on the world’s efforts to prevent catastrophe. That door will of course close fastest and hardest on the most vulnerable people around the planet, including the many millions of rural farmers who depend on increasingly unstable weather patterns in Africa.

The Durban Platform also guts the progressive aspects of the previous most important addendum to the Kyoto Protocol – the Bali Action Plan (BAP). BAP built on Kyoto’s model of common but differentiated responsibilities to tackle climate change. After all, while developing nations such as China may be producing large amounts of carbon today, it is advanced industrial countries such as the US, Japan, and the members of the EU who really polluted the atmosphere in the two hundred years since the industrial revolution. The Bali plan was based on cuts proportionate to this historical responsibility. Durban does away with this element of atmospheric equity, meaning that poor countries whose citizens still contribute relatively little carbon pollution on a per capita basis will face similar mitigation responsibilities as those in the rich and over-consuming nations.

In addition, little progress was made in Durban on one of the primary goals of previous agreements: some sort of fund to help developing countries not only adapt to the disastrous impacts of climate change, but also to help them mitigate their emissions through the transfer of green technologies. True, a Green Climate Fund (GCF) was established at Durban, but it is essentially an empty shell. As presently constituted, the GCF relies on voluntary donations by wealthy nations. It doesn’t take a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing in that regard; remember the yet-to-materialize $100 billion Hilary Clinton promised two years ago at Copenhagen? Furthermore, the private sector is explicitly able to access the GCF, meaning that large multi-national corporations could become recipients of mitigation dollars for big boondoggle projects like eucalyptus plantations.

Finally, the Durban Platform keeps the carbon trading provisions of the Kyoto Protocol on life support. This is probably the main reason for the efforts of the European Union at the conference, which many commentators mistakenly perceived as heroic. The European Emissions Trading System hinges on keeping prices of carbon at a level at which mitigation is attractive, but the cost of carbon keeps crashing.

Despite this terrible track record of efforts to commodify nature, Durban rolled out further mechanisms for financializing the environment. New provisions for soil carbon offsetting set up in Durban promise to allow polluting corporations to redeem their continuing emissions by paying other corporations to set up big farms (whose soli theoretically absorbs carbon) in poor countries, adding another factor to the already endemic displacement of peasants around the world.

The day before the UN conference began, flash floods tore through the city of Durban, killing six people and leaving hundreds homeless. As these floods, as well as catastrophes such as Hurricane Katrina in the US, show, it is the poor – the people who are least responsible for climate change – who are most vulnerable to pollution-induced natural disasters. From the Horn of Africa to the Philippines to the small island state of Tuvalu, hundreds of millions of people are already bearing the brunt of a climate crisis they did not create.

Although organizations representing this global majority were present at Durban, their voices are not yet strong enough to prevail over the short-term, greed-based thinking of the powerful. Faced with the climate apartheid of Durban, we must redouble our efforts to organize the planetary majority in the struggle for an equitable and just approach to climate change. As they say in South Africa, in the call-and-response chant that was central to the overthrow of apartheid, Amandla! [Power] Awethu! [To the People].

Ashley Dawson  is Professor of English at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center.  He is the author of Mongrel Nation: Diasporic Culture and the Making of Post-Colonial Britain and co-author with Malini Johar Schueller of “Exceptional State: Contemporary US Culture and the New ImperialismHe can be reached atashleydawson.info

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

February 20, 2017
Bruce E. Levine
Humiliation Porn: Trump’s Gift to His Faithful…and Now the Blowback
Melvin Goodman
“Wag the Dog,” Revisited
Robert Hunziker
Fukushima: a Lurking Global Catastrophe?
David Smith-Ferri
Resistance and Resolve in Russia: Memorial HRC
Kenneth Surin
Global India?
Norman Pollack
Fascistization Crashing Down: Driving the Cleaver into Social Welfare
Patrick Cockburn
Trump v. the Media: a Fight to the Death
Susan Babbitt
Shooting Arrows at Heaven: Why is There Debate About Battle Imagery in Health?
Matt Peppe
New York Times Openly Promotes Formal Apartheid Regime By Israel
David Swanson
Understanding Robert E. Lee Supporters
Michael Brenner
The Narcissism of Donald Trump
Martin Billheimer
Capital of Pain
Thomas Knapp
Florida’s Shenanigans Make a Great Case for (Re-)Separation of Ballot and State
Jordan Flaherty
Best Films of 2016: Black Excellence Versus White Mediocrity
Weekend Edition
February 17, 2017
Friday - Sunday
David Price
Rogue Elephant Rising: The CIA as Kingslayer
Matthew Stevenson
Is Trump the Worst President Ever?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Flynn?
John Wight
Brexit and Trump: Why Right is Not the New Left
Diana Johnstone
France: Another Ghastly Presidential Election Campaign; the Deep State Rises to the Surface
Neve Gordon
Trump’s One-State Option
Roger Harris
Emperor Trump Has No Clothes: Time to Organize!
Joan Roelofs
What Else is Wrong with Globalization
Andrew Levine
Why Trump’s Muslim Travel Ban?
Mike Whitney
Blood in the Water: the Trump Revolution Ends in a Whimper
Vijay Prashad
Trump, Turmoil and Resistance
Ron Jacobs
U.S. Imperial War Personified
David Swanson
Can the Climate Survive Adherence to War and Partisanship?
Andre Vltchek
Governor of Jakarta: Get Re-elected or Die!
Patrick Cockburn
The Coming Destruction of Mosul
Norman Pollack
Self-Devouring Reaction: Governmental Impasse
Steve Horn
What Do a Louisiana Pipeline Explosion and Dakota Access Pipeline Have in Common? Phillips 66
Brian Saady
Why Corporations are Too Big to Jail in the Drug War
Graham Peebles
Ethiopia: Peaceful Protest to Armed Uprising
Luke Meyer
The Case of Tony: Inside a Lifer Hearing
Binoy Kampmark
Adolf, The Donald and History
Robert Koehler
The Great American Awakening
Murray Dobbin
Canadians at Odds With Their Government on Israel
Fariborz Saremi
A Whole New World?
Joyce Nelson
Japan’s Abe, Trump & Illegal Leaks
Christopher Brauchli
Trump 1, Tillerson 0
Yves Engler
Is This Hate Speech?
Dan Bacher
Trump Administration Exempts Three CA Oil Fields From Water Protection Rule at Jerry Brown’s Request
Richard Klin
Solid Gold
Melissa Garriga
Anti-Abortion and Anti-Fascist Movements: More in Common Than Meets the Eye
Thomas Knapp
The Absurd Consequences of a “Right to Privacy”
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail