Post-Lieberman Warner: How We Got Here and What It Really Means For Us

Local and global devastation and an authentic national outcry to tackle the climate crisis has created a defining moment in climate legislation – a moment characterized by a climate bill frenzy that’s seated corporate lobbyists, traditional enviros, Wall Street economists, lefts, rights, labor unions and presidential candidates at the same table. Since 2003, with wider acceptance of the crisis of global warming, the political palette has gradually and strongly shifted to the taste for climate change policy. On the menu in June was the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, a compromise piece of arguably the most viable climate protection legislation to come before congress thus far, gaining more support than any climate bill before it. For a piece of legislation lauded as the future of US climate policy, the bill fell painfully short of an effective policy, paying familiar lip service to inadequate protection of our communities from climate change impacts while making unjust concessions to industries that would leave our air as unbearable as our energy bills.

Lieberman-Warner failed to pass in the Senate earlier this month, but it has still undoubtedly set the stage for the next round of national climate policy discussions that will grace congressional chambers in the immediate future. The death of Lieberman-Warner was not so much a failure (or success) of the legislative process as it was a mechanism that has catapulted US climate policy into a new arena, where our communities now have another opportunity to engage in the fight for a better policy. This is why it is so important to have knowledge of the history, architecture and pitfalls of the legislative process to effectively strategize for the next battle in climate policy. This is a crash course on what’s been going on in climate policy in the recent past, and what this means for the future of our communities.

The Lieberman-Warner bill was the result of 5 plus years characterized by a history of bi-partisan bill-breeding in the Senate, which began in ‘03 with a pioneer bi-partisan bill proposal – the first version of the McCain Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act. Since then, with competing bills, new proposals, shifting sponsors and ongoing amendments, the process to get consensus on one major bill (Lieberman-Warner) became a trial and error showdown of legislative survival of the fittest. Early 2007 witnessed the height of the climate bill frenzy as Congress sifted through some dozen or so potential bills for debate in an all-star tournament of Senator tag-teams fighting it out to build enough support for their pet bill to pass subcommittee, and to come out on top of the global warming hype.

Having already failed twice in 2003 and 2005, Senators Joe Lieberman and John McCain introduced the third version of the Climate Stewardship Act in January of 2007. But by July of 2007, as support for the bill dwindled, Senator Lieberman finally changed his approach and switched right-wing dancing partners, announcing his intention to craft a new bill with Senator John Warner. News of the proposal sparked growing support as elements of the bill circulated until the Senators formally introduced their new bill, entitled America’s Climate Security Act (S.2191), in October. Thereafter, with the support of Senator Boxer and other noteworthy endorsements, Lieberman-Warner became the remaining standing champ of the climate bill debate.

Lieberman-Warner cleared two major hurdles in the Congressional process, by passing subcommittee (Senate Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection) in October, and then made its way through committee (Senate Environment and Public Works Committee) in early December. But even with that, the bill and its supporters could not muster the 60 votes needed to make it off the Senate floor, even with the significant mark-up it received in the substitute amendment done by Senator Boxer in May. The bill finally entered debate on the Senate floor in early June, and during a week of messy, tense discussions and negotiating maneuvers, the Democratic leadership moved for cloture – a vote that, if passed, would have ended debate and moved the bill to a full vote, thereby putting an end to Republican filibustering and opening the floor to amendments on the bill. However, the motion for cloture failed, gaining only 48 of the required 60 votes. As a result, Lieberman-Warner was pulled from the floor, ending its legislative life, at least until new proposals are brought up in the next Congressional session. Although Lieberman-Warner failed to become law in this session of congress, it has certainly boosted the interest and awareness of the climate policy debate. The struggle now is no longer a matter of votes, but rather a matter of making sure that a well-informed, well-debated foundation for climate justice is in place for what comes next.

If we have learned anything at all from the process of sifting through the platter of climate bills debated over the past few years it is that the chefs on Capitol Hill have little taste for variation. Despite heavy criticism and existing arguments for other market-based approaches, heretofore cap & trade legislation has been the backbone of all climate policy debates thus far, including Lieberman-Warner. While cap & trade legislation holds its own general pitfalls[i], as an emissions reduction scheme, the trading system crafted by Lieberman-Warner’s architects itself has drawn harsh criticism from an array of opponents. Simply put, the bill is weak, and its implications are unjust. The most common, and most compelling, opposition to the bill points out how – even in its improved, amended version – the bill settles for weak emissions reductions targets, allows unprecedented concessions to the coal industry and, as emphasized by many justice-based groups, places the impacts of higher energy costs on the poor and communities of color – those lease able to afford them.

But perhaps the most fundamental problem with the Lieberman-Warner bill is that its targets for cutting carbon emissions are far too low. Science[ii] tells us globally we need to cut emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Lieberman-Warner regulates its emitters under a target of 71% below 2005 levels by 2050, or only 63% below 1990 levels. According to analysis by the EPA, if you include all other sources of carbon emissions, Lieberman-Warner will ultimately cut overall US emissions to only 25% below 1990 levels.[iii] Even more problematic, the amended version leaves room for greater emissions with the inclusion of an emergency offramp designed to keep the price of credits from getting too high – automatically putting even more credits into the market (increasing the emissions cap even higher) if the price exceeds a certain range. These weak regulations on emissions produced a bill with no backbone and set a risky stage for the future, making it even less likely polluters will ultimately make reduction targets over the bill’s 40 year lifetime. Alternately, strong targets now would push investment to develop and implement major, innovative technologies that will actually make a difference.

Another major threat of Lieberman-Warner is how it would allocate its pollution credits. Lieberman-Warner unabashedly gives much of the permits away for free, and to corporate polluters, no less. Instead of selling all of its credits to these polluters through an auction[iv], the bill would give away some $600 billion worth of credits over its lifetime. As a study by Friends of the Earth[v] clearly underlines, the heaviest polluters – namely the coal industry – gets close to half of those permits. This would give the biggest threat to our planet the best advantage.

From the beginning, environmental justice groups have been dissatisfied with Lieberman-Warner. When Senator Boxer announced her substitute amendment in May, one of the most touted provisions, made in response to growing criticism of the original bill by community activists, was an increase in the amount of assistance the bill would give to low-income communities who would hurt most from higher energy costs and job transitions to renewable energies. But in reality, the amendment was only a small improvement and the bill continued to lack sufficient substance to address community needs. This is because, generally, the bill uses revenues from auction profits and filters the money ineffectively through different entities that are to fund the programs that assist low-income consumers.

More fundamentally, Lieberman-Warner lacks accountability to communities and denies them a strong voice in the process. The bill was negotiated and developed largely behind closed doors, under a severely rushed time frame. The bill simply lacked any provisions for community input or oversight. We are now given a new window of opportunity to inject our voices in the debate that will shape future legislation. With the failure of Lieberman-Warner, there is no expectation to pass a bill in Senate this year. But conversations will not stop as the frenzy continues.

Better bills are being proposed. In fact, amongst a handful of proposals circulating in the House right now, Congressman Edward Markey has announced one of the most comprehensive bills to date. Clearly building off of criticism from past bill debates, Markey’s “Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act,” or iCAP, boasts better targets – 85% by 2050 – and essentially 100% auction of its credits – starting at 94% of total allowances in 2012 and reaching 100% in 2020. Not to mention, iCAP returns over half of auction proceeds to low- and middle-income households through rebates and tax credits, investing the remaining half in programs including clean energy tech, energy efficiency and green jobs training and assistance. Not ideal, but much improved, what Markey’s bill indicates is that there can be a clear movement for future policies that build on the pitfalls Lieberman-Warner presented, but only if we remain vigilant.

As new bills are being crafted and put on the menu for the next round of debates, we need to be sure to put in our orders for what our communities demand.

Hey there, my name is Rebecca, and I’m a summer intern at the Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative. This is a really exciting time to be involved with this movement! The national and international “green scene” is approaching a critical period in time: Governments, corporations, and the public are finally looking at themselves and asking, “How can we fix this mess?” International Indigenous Rights movements are building up steam, along with Human Rights movements, and, especially in the United States, discussions of race and gender have treaded waters that they hadn’t even dipped a toe in for quite some time. The rhetoric of “Change we can believe in” has moved beyond presidential campaigns into people’s personal lives. This is certainly true in the United States where most people are fed up with a war that has gone on for too long. We are financially crippled by our dependence on fossil fuels and the structures of oppression that lead to disparities and inequalities between particular groups in the U.S. are stubbornly persistent.

I feel that all of these factors can help to stimulate the environmental justice and climate justice movement. As humans, no matter how removed we might feel from the environment, we are surely still dependent on it. So if we are to survive, we must conserve it. There are vast amounts of deep-seated power structures in all parts of the world, but in order to create a just, fair, and vibrant earth, an immeasurable amount of people must be invested in the common vision of dismantling these structures. This challenge is what inspires many people involved in the social justice movement to do what they do.

Interestingly enough, it is very possible for both of these enormous issues to be combated simultaneously, which is what environmental justice and climate justice is all about. (More on this idea next post!)

Black bloggers fight to make voices heard

Source: SF Chronicle

With its power-to-the-individual approach, the new media world promises anyone with a laptop the possibility of a publishing empire. But, as some black bloggers are finding out, the new media world is a lot like the old one: racially segregated, with many prominent black voices still fighting to be heard.

Some bloggers felt insulted this month when the Democratic National Committee selected 55 state-oriented blogs to cover its convention in Denver; critics said few featured African American voices. The DNC said race wasn’t considered in its selection from 400 applicants. Officials were more interested in the sites’ audience size and how much chatter about local issues appeared on them. The DNC answered critics Thursday by adding several sites led by African Americans to its general blogger pool.

But some critics say the DNC situation is indicative of a larger media divide. It’s a division in which stories like the racially motivated beating in Jena, La., last year lingered for months on black blogs and talk radio before the mainstream press picked up the issue.

That coverage gap is partly what inspired Gina McCauley to help organize the first Blogging While Brown conference this summer in Atlanta. The most popular online community conferences - like the Netroots Nation confab that grew out of the Daily Kos blog - tend to be predominantly white gatherings.

“The progressive blogosphere is segregated,” said McCauley, whose What About Our Daughters blog was accepted to the DNC’s blogger pool. Essence magazine named McCauley one of its 25 most influential people last year alongside Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and filmmaker Tyler Perry. “Black bloggers link to other black bloggers, and progressive white bloggers link to other white progressive bloggers,” she said.

“I don’t know why that is,” said Gina Cooper, executive director of the Netroots Nation conference. After last year’s second annual convention, she expressed her frustration about the lack of diversity. Netroots Nation is offering scholarships this year, and Cooper is seeking other ways to make the gathering inclusive.

Black TV News Channel

Obama’s presidential campaign might have raised the visibility of black voices and stories in the mainstream media, but it has not, according to some, quenched the thirst for them.

That’s why former Oklahoma GOP Rep. J.C. Watts - a onetime CNN commentator - is planning to start a 24-hour cable news network devoted to African American issues and perspectives. Comcast plans to add the Black Television News Channel to its cable packages in cities with large African American populations, including Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Washington and Atlanta, sometime in mid-2009.

“The mainstream press by and large likes to see African Americans through a certain prism, and it is a small and cordoned-off prism,” Watts said. “Most institutions are like that. They see the African American community as an afterthought. But we are much more than drugs and crime.”

While there are many Spanish-language entertainment offerings and outlets for Spanish-language news on TV, Watts feels that African Americans are an underserved market, particularly for news. Black Entertainment Television (BET), the largest cable network aimed at an African American audience, canceled its nightly news program three years ago.

Watts envisions 14 hours each day of original news and talk programming on his network. So what type of stories would BTNC pursue? Watts said he went to a gathering of 125 prominent African American equity fund managers a few years ago, people who invested billions of dollars internationally. He envisioned them not only as potential investors in his network, but as individuals whose stories rarely get told in the mainstream press.

“We are an economic story, a political story and, yes, when we need to be, a story about drugs and crime,” Watts said. He declined to say how much he would need to raise to fund the network.

Should Watts succeed, he’d be one of only a few black media heads in the country.

Low media representation

While black people comprise 13 percent of the U.S. population, they own no daily newspapers and only 0.6 percent of full-power television stations and 3 percent of the radio stations. Only 5 percent of reporters at U.S. daily newspapers were African American in 2007, and the number of black-owned newspapers is dropping, as is their combined circulation.

Some of the African American reporters who remain in the ever-shrinking print newsrooms were miffed last week when former Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro responded to a question about sexism in the presidential campaign by pointing to black journalists and their perceived bias in favor of Obama.

“You know all the surrogates that they had out there from the black journalists,” Ferraro told Fox News. “Have you read (African American New York Times columnist) Bob Herbert recently in the past six months? There wasn’t one column that had anything decent to say about Hillary.” The same Herbert wrote a column about the “the dark persistence of misogyny in America” in January.

Barbara Ciara, president of the National Association of Black Journalists, said: “African American journalists find themselves fighting for a seat at the table with every major presidential election, but now comes the taint of bigotry with the recent remarks of Geraldine Ferraro, who suggested black journalists were no more than a mouthpiece for the Obama campaign because we share the same skin tone. Has she forgotten that Obama is half white?”

Some African Americans see an easier chance to have their voices heard in the online world, and black voices there are growing not only in number but in influence. Last September, Wayne Hicks’ Electronic Village blog ranked 75 black blogs on his monthly list; now he charts more than 1,250.

Hicks, who heads a nonprofit foundation, also is a member of AfroSpear, a collective of 140 blogs that focus on the black experience and gather momentum behind social justice issues like the racially charged incident involving a beating in Jena, La. Then there’s San Francisco’s ColorofChange.org, which envisions itself as the “black MoveOn.” It has grown from 100,000 members to 417,000 over the past year, many of whom joined the organization after it publicized the Jena incident and pressured the Congressional Black Caucus to oppose Fox News’ plans to host a presidential debate.

Growth in perspectives

“I’d say that the new black voices are much more organic than those of the past. They don’t need to emanate from the pulpit in order to be heard, or to inform, or to galvanize people from across the nation,” said Avis Jones-DeWeever, director of the National Council of Negro Women’s Research, Public Policy and Information Center. “These voices epitomize the next evolution of black political activism.”

There’s a difference in the types of stories that black and mainstream media cover, McCauley said. While some in the mainstream might analyze the influence of large media corporations on the Internet, black bloggers might focus on shows produced by Viacom-owned TV networks like VH1’s “Flavor of Love” and question the cartoonish depiction of African Americans.

And when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton mentioned Robert F. Kennedy’s June 1968 assassination while defending her decision to continue her presidential campaign, “a lot of the mainstream media covered it as a statement unto itself,” said Hicks. “But in the black community it was part of a pattern.” He, like others, noted that Clinton made her statement four days after the Roswell (Ga.) Beacon put a photo of Obama on its front page with the crosshairs of a rifle scope over him, and former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee made a joke about somebody aiming a gun at Obama during a speech to the National Rifle Association.

“The mainstream media had a reason to look at black voices in the media because of the Obama campaign,” Hicks said. “But these voices have always been out there.”

E-mail Joe Garofoli at jgarofoli@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/31/MN1T110MF0.DTL

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Published on: May 31, 2008
Written by: Joe Garofoli

Random Transit Convo #1
December 10, 2007
By Jihan Gearon

Here at the COP/MOP you can meet lots of interesting people and have lots of interesting conversations just riding the shuttle between the BICC (Bali International Convention Center) and the Grand Hyatt, where the side events are being held. Today I sat next to a man from Uganda. Our conversation started the way all conversations start here – “where are you from?”

When he found out I was from the U.S. he asked, “why isn’t climate change a major issue in your presidential debate?” I told him I thought it was because all of our presidential candidates would rather focus on the need for U.S. energy independence. That means they have in interest in continuing the use of fossil fuels. I think there are probably more reasons than that, but that’s the first one that popped into my mind. Then I started asking him questions.

Question: What are you wanting to come out of the COP/MOP?
Answer: Stopping the use of fossil fuels and using more renewable energy.

Question: What do you think of nuclear power?
Answer: Yes.

Question: What do you think of carbon trading?
Answer: It’s okay, but not enough. It doesn’t stop the use of fossil fuels, especially from the main polluters and that’s what we need.

Question: How is climate change affecting where you’re from?
Answer: Floods. We are having more floods when we used to have none, even during the dry season. When I was young we didn’t have anything like it, but now we do. Just a little while ago there was a flood that came our of nowhere and many people died. About 60 people died and a lot of homes were destroyed.

More or less. By then, our bus ride was over and we parted ways. I wish I had interviewed him with the camera. It’s always good for me to hear from people who have a good knowledge of where they’re from and can attest to how they’re local environment is changing. And it’s also good for me to hear that they understand what real solutions we need – less fossil fuel use from the rich countries.

[editor's note: some postings were never sent, some lost and some well here they are now...]

12. 11.07

Where my People at?

By Nia Robinson, EJCC Director

At least once a day I scan the crowd of the convention center. Sprinklings and clusters of brown faces in an overwhelming sea of whiteness.  There is a feeling of aloneness. I am surrounded by this and can’t but wonder why there aren’t more people of African descent here at the COP.  Surely African governments have sent their delegations, but where is an African grassroots presence?  Not only form Africa but from the global Diaspora as well.  From Africa to Brazil to the Caribbean to the US, black folks are suffering and feeling the effects of climate change but here at the COP there no space made for black people to come together and show solidarity with each other.

How do we as members of the African Diaspora work across not only state and country lines, but continental lines as well?  A Pan-African Caucus if you will. We must, like the Indigenous Peoples caucus stand together to combat this issue from New Orleans to Bahia to the Sudan.  I don’t know how to go about this, but I am committed to figuring this out.

from Tony C. Anderson, Morehouse College (Atlanta, GA) Senior

BALI, Indonesia, Dec. 13 “[T]here is a wrecking crew lead by but the Bush administration and its minions…” said Jennifer L. Morgan of Third Generation Environmentalism during the Climate Action Networks’ press conference today.

Her comment echoes the sentiment of many attending the UN Bail Climate Change Conference (officially known as the 13th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 3rd Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol), which is now being held Bali, Indonesia.

“The wrecking crew is working hard to derail negotiations…Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Canada are all falling in line” adds Morgan.

Inserting hostile language into legislation delays progress by requiring a vote of the full governing body, the Conference of the Party, this serves as the tactic of choice to derail advancement. For example, just two days ago, a working group adopted its final decision on reducing emissions from deforestation (REDD), ten minutes to midnight; consensus was blocked by the United States, which in the end, stood alone. The issue– the US delegation refused to compromise on three words — “land use within.”

Papua New Guinea proposed removing the “[land use within]” words in each paragraph, which was supported by New Zealand, Brazil, Ecuador and Panama. The US, however, refused to give in and ultimately, consensus was blocked. The draft decision will be sent to the COP with paragraphs 11 and 12 still bracketed, indicating lack of consensus.

“We still have some work to do today and tomorrow. We are hopeful …that we can find a way to bridge remaining differences and reach a consensus on a Bali Roadmap,” says Dr. Paula J. Dobrianshy, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs and head of the U.S. delegation to Bali negotiations.

Yesterday, the UNFCCC Executive Secretary outlined three targets, the Bali Roadmap, that would lay the foundation of a post 2012 agreement.
- Formal launch of negotiations on a post 2012 climate change agreement
- Agreement on the main agenda items for these negotiations, and
- Establishing a timeline to finish these negotiations.

With the final 36 hours commencing many Parties to the Conference, the official delegates to the UN Climate Change conference (COP-13) stand on edge as the window for progress slowly closes.

There is hope, but will we actually see a Bali Breakthrough?

[editor's note: Due to some minor technical difficulties I wasn't able to get & post Ellen's blogs until today... slightly unfortunate delay, but well worth the wait to read her insights into the UNFCCC experience. Thanks El, for taking the time to share!]

<br>
12-07-07: EJCC’s Arrival in Bali: Initial Thoughts and Expectations (from Ellen Choy, currently in Bali)

Flying from Atlanta, Georgia, Flagstaff, Arizona and Oakland, California – thousands of miles and 3 plane meals later – we, the representatives of EJCC, official delagates to the UNFCCC, have officially begun our time and work here in Bali! As soon as we touched down at Bali’s international air terminal in in Denpasar we were slapped in the face with Indonesia’s 85-degree, 90% humidity wet season climate – a rude awakening to the physical acclimation we would be enduring in the next ten days. Nevertheless, coming from plunging winter temperatures back at home, I think we are all smiling at the anticipation of living a short, tropical December. In our car ride to the hotel we experienced left-sided steering and more motorcycles than we could imagine filling the streets, which provided us the other element to our welcoming into Bali. Quickly reminding us of the reason we had come to Indonesia, UNFCCC paraphernalia is decorating all major streets and passageways within a 20-minute radius of the conference. From large bright orange UNFCCC banners hanging from every other tree to gigantic billboards displaying messages on climate change (my favorite: a “Climate Change…Protect the Vulnerable” billboard sponsored by the Indonesian government), it is clear that this conference has caused the world, for two-weeks, to turn its attention to this small, but beautiful island. And yes, EJCC is here, ready and excited to jump in head-first.
Arriving during the interim weekend of the two-week conference, luckily we will have a few days to experience both the culture and the climate shock, as well as get our bearings on what’s been going on before we throw ourselves into the conference trenches. We know we have a lot of work ahead of us, and a lot of both personal and collective expectations to fill. We will be four of only a handful of people of color coming from the US. We will also be one of very few US-based climate justice organizations. In a very North American, white-dominated pool of participants, it is clear that EJCC will be a vital voice in any discussions and debates we enter. We will be going in with our sound knowledge base of climate change issues, domestic and international, as well as our fearless agendas to openly report back on what we observe through our climate justice lenses and to be a strong presence as climate justice advocates. The magnitude of this conference is being reflected in the massive media coverage it is receiving globally, so we are not shy about the work that is ahead of us. If anything, this is to be a learning experience, as climate justice is the issue of our generation and this conference is the manifestation of some of the most important international decisions that will be made in our lifetime. While most back in the States are pulling out the scarves and firewood, we’re layering ourselves with mosquito repellent and sweat-drenched shirts – what seems a small sacrifice for the profound effect our presence here at the UNFCCC can potentially have.

<br>
12-10-07: Lieberman-Warner Talks in Bali: A Rude Awakening
Our first day at the conference was a little overwhelming, despite the two hours it took standing in Blainese heat and humidity to finally get ourselves registered and walking through the doors of the Bali International Convention Centre. The level of activity was more than expected, but we clumsily got our bearings and headed into the side events and caucus meetings our firt-day agenda channeled us to.
Most of what my post-registration day consisted of was attending a special Lieberman-Warner side event, presenting the bill and a panel of speakers who were directly involved in the bill’s crafting. Tony and I attended, entering a small room filled to the brim with observers and note-takers, amongst which we soon learned were scattered multiple US congressional staff representatives as well as other high-profile delegates, many from the European Union. The spotlight was shared by Chelsea Maxwell and David McIntosh, chief climate aides to Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner, respectively. As both Tony and I’s very first experience participating in the conference, this event provided a rude awakening to the struggle we, as climate justice advocates, will be facing in the coming week. As the only debate open to NGO participation on the leading climate legislation in the US, there was a complete lack of conversations around equity or justice. We saw it critical to engage ourselves in the discussion, but it was clear that the politics and special interests in the room fostered an environment where a CJ voice was almost unwelcome.
90% of the talks that happened in the room were flooded with highly technical jargon around deforestation and offsets (a central issue at this year’s COP/MOP), and how Lieberman-Warner is acting (or not) to incorporate international offsets into its cap and trade scheme. There was a complete lack of address of community impacts in those conversations – not surprisingly reminiscent of the bill itself. Even a direct question we were able to slip in to Ms. Maxwell on what is happening to better address vulnerable communities was responded with a quick shoulder brush and a “come talk to me in DC” push aside. Slightly discouraged, but provoked and fired up for the rest of the week, our first experiences at the conference provided us the day’s lesson for our work here: while the conference center is flooded with signs, banners, brochures and t-shirts promoting climate justice messages, actually injecting those concerns in discussions and debates occurring will demand us to yell loud and continue to push to represent a voice so often muffled by the dominating interests here at the UNFCCC.

<br>
12-11-07: Making Moves in the Youth Caucus
Today was a big day for the youth caucus, as they completed the final statement they will be reading to the high-level plenary on Friday as their official statement as the youth representatives. And Tony and I were able to fully, and loudly, participate. Having now been widely exposed to the activity here at the conference, it is clear that these statements will be some of the most important opportunities, if not the most important, to influence anything politically and legislatively substantial happening behind closed doors. The youth caucus’s statement will act as a demand for action amongst the government delegates to push for stringent policies on climate change. Therefore, given the invitation to participate in the small working group drafting the statement, both Tony and I quickly jumped to make this the focus of our work today.
It was clear that our input was needed. The youth caucus consists of over 200 delegates from many countries, largely dominated by delegations from Canada, the US and Australia (surprise, surprise). Furthermore, only a handful of those delegates are people of color, narrowing the actual representation of communities of color from both the North and South overall to maybe 10% of the total youth caucus. I almost felt uncomfortable noticing the intrigued response from the room when Tony and I entered as youth specifically representing communities of color in the US. But the sense of community in the room as the youth caucus was sufficiently unifying, and other representatives, such as groups from Japan and Indonesia, were refreshingly not shy to show face and at least participate. Also driving active discussions to make moves as a unified youth front was the commonly sensed frustration with the COP/MOP as a highly-process-focused conversation, where specific issues and voices, such as the youth, are not being heard. Instead, narrow talks around post-Kyoto and North-South politics are dominating discussions. This triggered the concensus that this year, more than ever,the youth, as well as other special caucuses will need to present strong, cohesive fronts.
Tony and I sat down with 5 to 15 (busy schedules caused people to jump in and out) youth delegates to refine and revise the drafted statement to be read Friday at the high-level plenary. We really stuck our noses in the process, to fight for inclusion of climate justice language, as well as simply fortifying the policy demands the youth will be presenting in the statement. It is clear that we cannot back down at any point during this conference or more generally in any work we do in similar spaces in which our communities can be affected by conversations that are happening here. Even in specialized forums, such as a youth caucus, where a lack of justice principles is evident, we are called upon by our place on the EJCC delegation and as representatives of our communities to push for an inclusion of a strong CJ perspective. My expectation is that it will be no small task to continue to fight for what we are here to stand for, but that there still exists significant potential for us to be heard. In fact, because of our presence today in the youth caucus, we have been invited to present a climate justice testimony in tomorrow’s international youth press conference.

Ellen Choy,

EJCC Program Associate

ellen@ejcc.org

WORLD BANK HANDS OFF FORESTS December 10, 2007

BALI (INDONESIA), Dec. 10, 2007 Environmental groups at the United
Nations climate talks in Bali today urged governments to reject a new
World Bank initiative promoting the inclusion of forests in carbon
markets.

The World Bank initiative, known as the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility
(FCPF) is set to be launched on Tuesday 11th December in Bali as part of
the discussions on Reducing Emissions through Deforestation in Developing
countriesÂ’ (REDD).

The initiative, which would allow tropical forests to be included in
carbon offsetting schemes, fails to combat climate change, the groups
said, because it allows industrialised countries and companies to buy
their way out of emissions’ reductions.

Between 18-20 percent of annual global carbon emissions are caused by
deforestation, and Indonesia is the world’s third largest greenhouse gas
emitter as a result of deforestation.

The World Bank has a particularly appalling track record in relation to
funding forests and carbon projects, not least because it provides
substantial funding to oil, gas and mining projects; and as a broker, has
a vested interest in promoting carbon trading.

Its planned Forest Carbon Partnership Facility would have serious negative
social and environmental impacts, the groups said.

Torry Kuswardhono, Energy Campaigner at Friends of the Earth Indonesia
(WALHI): said:

“Carbon offsetting is extremely unfair. Forests provide livelihoods for
over one billion Indigenous and other forests peoples. Wealthy companies
and countries are able to buy the right to continue to pollute, while poor
communities in developing countries can find themselves locked into
unfavourable, long-term commercial contracts over forest management”.

Sandy Gauntlett, Pacific focal point of the Global Forest Coalition and
chairman of the Pacific Indigenous Peoples Environment Coalition said:

“Indigenous Peoples and local communities will bear the real costs of
forest-related climate mitigation projects based on carbon finance because
they will increase the pressure on their lands and territories and
undermine land rights claims. With this proposal, the World Bank is
violating the principle of Prior Informed Consent, which is enshrined in
the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Peoples
should not just be consulted on this facility. Without their full and
prior informed consent this facility should be disbanded.”

World Rainforest Movement spokesperson Ana Filipini said :

“Carbon finance mechanisms in developing countries result in forests being
transferred or sold off to large corporations who hope to acquire
profitable Â’carbon creditsÂ’ associated with those forests at some point in
the future. The current proposals are set to reward logging and palm oil
corporations and countries with high deforestation rates whilst
undermining Indigenous Peoples’ and other forest-dependent communities’
rights, in particular those of women.”

Some of the genuine and urgent measures needed to address the
deforestation problem include:

1) Giving the highest priority to halting the development, production and
trade of agrofuels, and suspend all targets and other incentives,
including subsidies, carbon offsets and public and private finance related
to the development and production of agrofuels.

2) Keeping tropical forests out of carbon finance mechanisms, which are
unpredictable, inequitable and discourage the reduction of emissions at
source. This includes keeping forests out of the Clean Development
Mechanism and all carbon trading initiatives; and rejecting the World
BankÂ’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF).

3) Redirect the very substantial amounts of public funds, tax exemptions
and other forms of subsidies currently provided to the fossil fuel and
agrofuels industries, into avoided deforestation assistance funds, the
effective promotion of public transport and the development of solar,
wind, geothermal, wave and energy efficiency industries.

4) Strengthen weak forest conservation policies and institutions,
encouraging bans or moratoria on industrial logging and forest
conversion, and addressing corruption and lack of enforcement.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

IN BALI:

Joseph Zacune, Friends of the Earth International climate coordinator,
Indonesian mobile number +62.813.3896995 (dec 1-14 only)

Sandy Gauntlett, Oceania focal point, Global Forest Coalition and
chairperson of the Pacific Indigenous Peoples Environment Coalition, +62-
813-38938574 or email sandyoceania@yahoo.com

Torry Kuswardhono, Energy Campaigner, Friends of the Earth Indonesia
(WALHI): +62- 811383270 or email torry@walhi.or.id

Fay, media officer, WALHI (Friends of the Earth Indonesia) , Indonesian
mobile number +62 815 8070717

EJCC Media Team photos taken during action yesterday:

[photos by Jihan Gearon]

by Tony C. Anderson (from Bali)

Today, as a side event at the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia (COP-13) Greenpeace’s Solar Generation with the assistance of the Japanese delegation took a brief moment to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the creation of the Kyoto Protocol. The multiple layered chocolate cake was a welcomed sidebar to the hectic and often frenzied workday of the giant climate conference.

Ten years ago today, 11 December 1997, the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to address climate disruption, was developed in Kyoto, Japan during the UN Climate Change Conference (COP-3) as the world’s first international agreement that set binding targets for the reduction of greenhouse- gas emissions by industrialized countries. After going into effect on 16 February 2005 approximately 141 countries ratified the treaty leaving Australia and the United States as the only developed nations not to join the world’s major climate mitigating scheme.

Most recently, the newly elected government of Australia ratified Kyoto, leaving America as the sole nation not to do so. According to the international treaty, the emissions reduction target for the U.S. was only a mere 7% below 1990 levels by 2012. Today, the COP-13 International Youth Delegation (a group of 200 or so young people from around the world here in Bail) supports reducing US emissions reduction by 80% by 2050. With less than 5% of the world’s population, the US produces approximately 25 % of the world’s global warming pollutants.

So the question remains, has the US grown ANY in the past 10 years? What, specifically, will the US do in the next 4 years and beyond to mitigate it’s share of contributions to global climate change? [The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.]

Will the moral imperative be made plain that we must do more? I guess we’ll just have to see…

(…and here’s the birthday video I just made- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsRJaNuiVBw )

["mmmhh, cake and justice."---editor's note]

[FYI: To save time, energy and $ we've streamlined the process for the EJCC crew to get their words out on the net- they will be sending their words to me to distribute on this and other blogs. Me, being Oriana, whom YOU can also contact if you have questions, suggestion or information for the EJCC crew on the ground in Bali. [ejccmedia@gmail.com or 510.459.4639 cellphone] ]

It Ain’t Easy Being Indian

Jihan Gearon

December 10, 2007

Today was my first day at the UNFCCC- that’s the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, for those of you who don’t know. Also known as COP13/MOP3. That’s the Thirteenth Conference of the Parties/Third Meeting of the Parties for those of you who haven’t asked somebody. Lotsa words isn’t it? You don’t know the half of it.

I started my day by attending the Indigenous Peoples caucus where the group was busy creating text that we would hopefully be able to pass on to a member of the contact group for today’s focus, who would hopefully add it to their comments, that would hopefully make it’s way through the back and forths of the parties (countries), and hopefully end up in the final text of the Chairman. In short, we spent a lot of time trying to make the UNFCCC process and outcomes better for Indigenous Peoples by making as few changes as possible to an existing document, all the while fully aware that it is very unlikely that our suggestions will be adopted or even listened to.

I am by no means saying that the hard work put in by the Indigenous Peoples caucus or any of the Indigenous People attending the COP is stupid or useless. I have great respect for them because I understand our cultures are tied to our surroundings and in order for our cultures to survive (for us to survive), our environments have to survive. Therefore, I know that these Indigenous People are here at the UN for the right reasons and their input will give the right outcomes.

What I am saying is that Indigenous People need a much bigger and better seat at the table. Our communities and livelihoods are the first affected by climate change. We are also the most affected by the unsustainable solutions being proposed to solve climate change – nuclear power, clean coal, carbon sequestration, reforestation, carbon trading, etc, etc, etc. Yet, instead of having real input in the UNFCCC process, we have to spend our time picking through words. And while we’re busy doing that, those people who want to sacrifice us to put some dollars in their pockets, make the decisions.

This past September 13th, the UN General Assembly adopted the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which protects the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their lands, territories and environment. Yet through the faulty process and false climate change solutions of the UNFCCC, it’s these fundamental human rights that are being violated.

The Indigenous Peoples here in Bali are asking the UN to live up to their words, to listen to us, and to stop with the false solutions that devastate our lands, threaten our ways of life, and deny our human rights.

Damn. Even in the paradise that is Bali, thousands of miles and dozens of hours away from home, in the midst of world leaders, I’m reminded it ain’t easy being Indian.

Stay tuned for updates, interviews, pictures, and videos of the Indigenous presence at COP13/MOP3 in Bali, Indonesia.
Jihan is Navajo and African American from Fort Defiance, Arizona on the eastern side of the Navajo Nation. She is a Stanford graduate with a Bachelors of Science in Earth Systems and a focus in Energy Science and Technology. She currently works as the Native Energy Organizer for the Indigenous Environmental Network and works out of Flagstaff, Arizona. In this role, Jihan works to build the capacity of and connect Indigenous communities throughout the U.S. and Canada who are impacted by oil and gas development and climate change. Previous to her employment with IEN, Jihan was a Program Associate with the Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative (EJCC). She was also a member of the inaugural class of the EJCC’s Climate Justice Corps.